.3 

m 


MC-NRLF 


GOV.   TAZEWELL'S 


REVIEW    OF 


RESIDENT  JACKSON'S 


PROCLAMATION. 


• 


/!/ 


REVIEW  OF  THE  PROCLAMATION 


OF 


PRKSIDKNT  JACKSON 


OF   THE 


OK    DECEMBER,    1832,1 


IN    A 


SERIES  OF  NUMBERS  ORIGINALLY  PUBLISHED  IN  THE  "NORFOLK 
AND  PORTSMOUTH  HERALD," 


UNDER  THE  SIGNATURE  OF  "A  VIRGINIAN." 

HON.   LITTLETON    WALLER    TAZEWELL. 


NORFOLK : 
J.    D.    GtllS 

1888. 


PRESS  OF 

EDWARD  O.  JENKINS* 
NEW  YORK. 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  PROCLAMATION  OF 
PRESIDENT  JACKSON. 


i. 

NORFOLK,  December  28,  1832. 

THE  recent  Proclamation  of  the  President  of  the  United  States^ 
in  denying  the  correctness  of  certain  propositions  that  have  ever 
been  held  (in  Virginia,  at  least,)  as  fundamental  truths  of  consti 
tutional  law,  and  by  affirming,  in  the  confident  language  of  au 
thority,  the  propriety  and  justice  of  other  propositions,  which  we, 
of  Virginia,  have  ever  regarded  as  political  heresies,  seems  to  de 
mand  of  some  Virginian  to  review  these,  his  various  assertions. 

I  have  waited  ever  since  the  Proclamation  first  appeared,  in  the 
hope  that  some  one  more  disposed  and  better  qualified  to  perform 
such  a  task,  would  undertake  it ;  but  as  none  such  has  yet  done 
so,  even  I  will  essay  its  performance.  In  doing  so,  my  sole  object, 
is  Truth ;  the  sole  means  I  shall  employ  for  its  attainment,  will 
be  reason  and  fair  argument ;  the  sole  authorities  upon  which  I 
shall  rely,  will  be  the  History  of  our  country  for  my  facts,  and  its 
Constitution  for  my  principles. 

AVhen  the  occasion  that  has  induced  this  Proclamation  shall 
have  passed  away  (as  pass  away  it  must),  the  questions  raised  by 
the  President  will  still  remain. 

They  have  become  the  property  of  History.  No  matter  how 
these  questions  may  be  now  settled  or  disposed  of,  they  will  still 
arise  hereafter  as  problems  of  deep  interest  in  political  philosophy^ 
to  occupy  the  anxious  reflections  of  statesmen  yet  unborn,  as  they 
have  employed  heretofore  the  solemn  meditations  of  the  wisest 

250577 


4  A    REVIEW    OF   THE 

and  best  amongst  ns  who  are  now  no  more.     Seen  through  the 

O  O 

long  vista  of  Time,  the  meanings  of  the -several  personal  allusions 
which  darken  the  surface  of  this  State  paper,  will  not  then  be  un 
derstood  ;  the  faults  of  its  style  will  be  then  concealed  by  the 
rust,  or  ascribed  to  the  prevailing  taste  of  other  days ;  even  the 
spirit  in  which  it  is  conceived  will  not  be  discerned,  nor  its  im 
mediate  objects  regarded.  Under  such  a  light  do  I  now  wish  to 
examine  it ;  and,  disregarding  everything  but  it?  doctrines,  I  pro 
pose  calmly  to  inquire:  Are  these  true?  I  may  hereafter,  per 
haps,  institute  another  inquiry  as  to  the  authority  of  the  Chief 
Magistrate  of  such  a  government  as  that  of  the  United  States,  to 
utter  ex  cathedra  any  dogmas  whatever;  and  as  to  the  probable 
effects  of  such  a  novel  practice  in  this  country,  even  if  it  is  con 
ceded  that  the  dogmas  so  proclaimed  may  be  true. 

But  as  this  is  a  matter  of  minor  importance,  and  in  its  nature 
is  properly  consecutive  of  the  first  inquiry,  I  merely  announce  it 
now,  to  show  that  I  have  not  overlooked  a  great  question,  which, 
under  a  different  view  of  this  subject  than  that  which  I  propose 
to  take,  would  present  itself  naturally  at  the  very  threshold. 

As  preliminary  to  the  examination  of  the  questions  I  have  sta 
ted  (which  examination  may  very  possibly  be  drawn  out  through 
several  numbers),  it  will  be  necessary  to  offer  a  few  brief  and  very 
general  remarks  upon  the  nature  and  objects  of  all  governments, 
arid  upon  some  of  the  peculiar  characters  of  our  own. 

These  will  constitute  the  matter  of  this  number,  which  is  de 
signed  as  merely  introductory  of  my  intended  investigation. 

No  history  records,  nor  any  tradition  even  faintly  preserves,  the 
commencement  of  that  struggle  between  Power  and  Right,  which 
has  continued  unceasingly  to  this  day,  and  must  still  go  on  while 
man  is  but  man. 

Founded  upon  this  long  experience,  is  the  general  truth  winch 
so  many  particular  examples  illustrate,  that  whoever  is  possessed 
of  authority  will  probably  abuse  it. 

But  as  in  a  world  compounded  of  good  and  evil,  Right  can 
never  be  long  preserved,  except  by  Power,  the  securities  of  Right 
must  necessarily  be  confided  to  the  custody  of  Power,  although 
man  is  certain  that  this  will  be  perverted,  and  often  misemployed. 
It  is  better  to  trust  the  flock  to  the  dog,  although  we  know  that 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  5 

he  will,  and  does,  worry  it,  than  to  leave  it  defenceless  against  the 
insatiable  voracity  of  the^evouring  wolf. 

In  yielding  to  the  necessity  of  committing  the  preservation  of 
Right  to  the  care  of  Power,  man  has  always  endeavored  so  to 
muzzle  and  shackle  Power,  as  that  while  its  strength  might  re 
main  unimpaired  for  the  attainment  of  good,  it  should  be  impo 
tent  to  accomplish  any  evil. 

Free  government  is  the  device  to  attain  this  desirable  end;  and 
the  various  forms  under  which  such  governments  have  existed 
throughout  all  time,  are  but  different  inventions  to  accomplish  the 
same  purpose. 

Parental  affection,  the  obligations  of  Religion,  the  precepts  of 
Education,  and  the  division  of  authorities,  all,  all  have  been  tried, 
in  past  time,  singly,  and  in  every  sort  of  combination  which  inge 
nuity  could  suggest,  as  checks  and  limitations  of  Power ;  but  they 
were  all  tried  in  vain.  Power  granted  to  protect  Eight  has  al 
ways  proved  unmindful  of  its  charge.  Sooner  or  later  it  has  con 
trived  to  rid  itself  of  the  shackles  imposed  upon  it ;  and  govern 
ors,  even  when  but  the  creatures  and  agents  of  society,  have  be 
lieved  themselves  born  to  command  it,  and  have  somehow  or  other 
become  its  Lords  and  its  Masters. 

Although  always  disappointed  and  defeated,  yet  Patriotism  lias 
never  relinquished  her  hope  of  ultimate  success. 

In  every  new  state  of  things,  she  has  presented  some  new 
scheme,  to  remedy  the  known  defects  of  her  former  plans,  and  to 
prevent  their  recurrence.  For  a  long  time  nature  herself  seemed 
to  oppose  these  devices,  and  to  present  her  immutable  la\vs  as 
obstacles  not  to  be  overcome  by  the  wisdom  of  the  most  enlight 
ened  sages.  That  the  People  should  govern  themselves,  directly 
and  immediately,  was  one  of  the  experiments  of  Antiquity,  which 
experience  soon  proved  to  them,  could  never  be  applied,  with  any 
hope  of  success,  to  any  territory  of  wide  extent,  because  it  was 
impossible  to  gather  together  the  people  of  such  a  territory,  either 
as  often,  or  as  promptly,  as  their  necessities  required ;  and  even 
if  this  was  possible,  their  numbers  would  be  too  great  for  useful 
deliberation.  Hence,  it  was  a  maxim  of  one  of  the  wisest  of  the 
Greek  Philosophers,  that  extent  of  territory  was  incompatible 
with  the  existence  of  a  Republican  Government.  The  same  Phi- 


6  A   REVIEW   OF   THE 

losopher  lived  to  see  a  small  territory  fall  an  easy  prey  tp  the  am 
bition  of  a  more  powerful  neighbor.  Fme  government,  therefore, 
seemed  to  be  prohibited  to  mankind. 

Centuries  rolled  by  after  the  annunciation  of  this  supposed  po 
litical  maxim,  and  it  still  continued  undenied  and  undoubted  by 
the  learned.  At  length,  Barbarism  enveloped  the  better  part  of 
the  civilized  world,  and  the,  torch  of  Science  was  extinguished. 
It  is  in  these  dark  ages,  when  the  light  of  Science  had  ceased  to 
shine  upon  a  benighted  world,  that  the  historian  first  sees  a  new 
Star  appear,  to  shed  its  lustre  upon  humanity. 

Feeble  were  its  rays  at  first,  but  they  were  soon  collected  by 
the  watchful  industry  of  Patriotism,  and  their  heat  then  sufficed 
to  rekindle  the  expired  vestal  flame  of  Liberty  and  Right,  which 
has  never  since  ceased  to  burn  bright  and  clear.  Learning  may 
continue  to  deplore  her  losses  by  the  ravages  of  the  Gothic  con 
querors  of  the  Western  Empire,  but  Freedom  finds  ample  com 
pensation  for  this  loss,  in  their  great  invention  of  Representative 
Government,  and  its  necessary  companion,  Trial  by  Jury. 

The  present  generation  is  not  indebted  to  their  barbarian  pro-, 
genitors  for  the  inestimable  blessing  of  Representative  government 
only.  To  our  Anglo-Saxon  ancestors  we  also  owe  the  invention 
of  written  Charters,  the  beet  guarantees  of  Liberty,  while  those 
who  freely  give,  or  those  who  bravely  exact  them,  have  the  wis 
dom  to  understand  the  nature  of  the  grants,  and  the  firmness  to 
preserve  their  provisions  inviolate.  Under  such  Charters,  extorted 
from  their  Kings  by  the  clear  heads  and  stout  hearts  of  their 
English  ancestors,  do  their  posterity  enjoy  all  of  Liberty  now  felt 
in  Great  Britain.  To  the  sensitive  jealousy  always  manifested 
by  that  people,  at  any  attempt  to  violate  the  conditions  of  these 
grants,  is  the  world  indebted  for  the  first  idea  of  Constitutional 
Law,  and  legal  Liberty. 

The  violation  of  this  Liberty  brought  one  King  of  Great  Britain 
to  the  block,  to  atone  with  his  blood  for  the  crimes  he  had  com 
mitted  against  its  sacred  guarantees.  The  attempted  violation  of 
this  Law,  hurled  another  from  his  throne,  to  expiate  in  exile  his 
intended  sins  against  the  charters.  Such  is  the  foundation  of 
British  liberty,  and  such  the  means  by  which  it  was,  and  is  still, 
secured. 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  7 

When  North  America  was  first  colonized  by  Great  Britain,  our 
forefathers' settled  here  under  the  protection  of  written  Charters, 
in  each  of  which  were  they  assured  the  full  enjoyment  of  all  the 
rights  of  free-born  British  subjects.  These  rights  were  trampled 
upon  by  the  power  of  the  mother  country ;  and  we  were  then  too 
weak  to  protect  them.  But  time  rolled  on,  and  we  became 
stronger.  Former  submission  provoked  (as  it  always  does)  new 
aggressions.  We  first  petitioned  our  Sovereign  for  relief,  but  he 
was  deaf  to  cur  prayers.  We  then  called  upon  our  fellow-sub 
jects  to  assist  us  in  obtaining  redress  and  security,  but  they,  too, 
were  heedless  of  our  applications. 

They  so  forced  us  to  appeal  to  the  God  of  battles,  and  in  inde 
pendence  we  wrung  from  our  oppressors  that  which,  had  they 
have  granted  at  first  to  our  just  supplications,  might  possibly  have 
preserved  much  longer  its  richest  jewel  in  the  British  Crown. 

The  chartered  rights  of  British  subjects  were  ours.  Of  these 
rights  we  had  been  unjustly  deprived.  Like  our  common  ances 
tors,  we  demanded  them  in  battle,  and  like  them,  by  battle  we 
obtained  them. 

Although  the  acquisition  was  sealed  with  some  of  our  best  blood, 
yet  all  knew  it  would  be  of  little  avail,  if  not  secured  by  as  much 
of  wisdom  and  of  valour  as  had  been  evinced  in  the  purchase. 

Therefore,  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  that  Liberty  which  had 
so  been  earned,  our  wisest  citizens  were  assembled  to  devise  a 
form  of  government.  To  these  assemblages  are  we  indebted  for 
all  our  original  constitutions,  the  peculiar  characters  of  some  of 
which  charters,  it  shall  be  the  purpose  of  my  future  numbers  to 
display. 

At  present,  I  will  merely  say,  that  they  were  all  the  new  in 
ventions  of  most  profound  wisdom,  designed  to  embody  all  that 
experience  had  shown  to  be  useful,  in  any  of  the  institutions  of 
other  times,  arid  to  apply  it  to  the  particular  condition  of  this 
country  then. 

The  Democratic  form  had  presented  the  beau  ideal  of  govern 
ment  to  many  of  the  wisest  of  the  ancient  political  philoso 
phers,  because,  under  this  form  of  government,  the  Rights  of  the 
people  were  guarded  by  the  Power  of  the  people  ;  and  it  was  not 
to  be  believed  that  such  Trustees  could  ever  prove  false  to  such  a 


8  A    REVIEW   OF   THE 

Trust.  But  experience  had  taught  even  these  Philosophers,  that 
under  such  a  government,  a  small  State  could  not  defend  itself 
with  sufficient  vigour  against  the  sudden  assault  of  a  more  power 
ful  neighbour ;  and  their  own  a  priori  reasoning  had  convinced 
them,  that  the  principles  of  a  Democracy  could  not  be  usefully  ap 
plied  to  a  wide,  extended  empire.  Gothic  knowledge,  however,  had 
achieved  what  Grecian  and  Roman  learning  had  in  vain  attempt 
ed.  In  devising  Representative  government,  it  had  obviated  all 
the  objections  to  a  Democracy  which  antiquity  had  felt  or  seen. 
Hence,  a  Representative  Democracy  was  everywhere  adopted  by 
the  sagacity  of  the  American  statesmen,  as  that  form  of  govern 
ment  most  approved  by  the  wisdom  of  the  past,  and  best  suited  to 
the  particular  condition  of  our  country  at  that  time. 

The  origin  of  all  former  governments  of  this  kind  (if,  indeed, 
any  such  had  ever  been),  was  hidden  by  the  ignorance  of  the  bar 
barian  people  with  whom  they  had  existed,  or  so  imperfectly  ex 
hibited  to  modern  view,  as  to  enable  us  only  to  infer  that  origin, 
from  the  subsequent  references  to  its  supposed  ancient  features. 

Most  conspicuous  amongst  these  references  was  that  to  the  an 
cient  positive  compacts  between  the  governors  and  governed, 
whereby  the  rights  of  all  were  supposed  to  be  expressly  declared 
and  consecrated. 

Whether  such  compacts  had  at  first  any  other  than  a  presumed 
existence,  was  a  matter  which,  however  interesting  to  the  Anti 
quarian,  was  of  little  concern  to  the  Patriot.  Time  had  stamped 
the  presumption  (if  it  was  such)  with  the  authenticity  of  Truth  ; 
and  in  all  his  references  to  them,  the  sagacious  statesman  of  ancient 
days  regarded  them  as  the  solemn  expressed  assurances  of  the  rights 
of  the  governed,  to  be  guarded  by  them  with  all  vigilance,  and 
sealed  anew,  if  necessary,  with  their  best  blood — Nolumus  leges 
A.ngli(E  mutari  quce  hucus  que  usitatce  sunt  et  approbates,  was  the 
language  of  British  freemen,  who,  trusting  to  their  own  vigour  to 
maintain  them,  preferred  to  hold  their  rights  under  the  customs 
of  a  time  beyond  which  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not,  rather 
than  to  expose  them  to  the  cavil  and  artifice  of  insidious  construc 
tion.  Hence,  all  the  instruments  of  British  legislation  designed 
to  secure  rights  to  the  People,  from  the  great  charter  of  Runny- 
jnede,  to  the  last  act  of  Parliament  which  established  the  House 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JAOKSON.  9 

of  Brunswick  on  the  throne  by  the  free  voice  of  the  people  of 
Great  Britain,  all  are  but  declaratory  Laws,  not  professing  to  give 
what  the  people  had  not  before,  but  merely  to  assure  rights  which 
had  been  theirs  in  all  time  past. 

The  wisdom  of  this  example,  although  duly  appreciated  here, 
could  not  be  imitated  exactly  in  our  country ;  but  it  taught  a  les 
son  which  American  Patriots  improved.  The  monarchy  of  Eng 
land  was  of  an  origin  so  ancient,  as  to  defy  any  search  for  its 
primitive  foundations.  The  prerogatives  of  the  Crown  and  the 
privileges  of  the  People  both  rested  upon  the  same  base,  imme 
morial  tisane.  All  the  declarations  of  what  these  were  and  ever 

o 

had  been,  (no  matter  how  such  declarations  were  obtained,)  pro 
ceeded  from  an  existing  and  acknowledged  sovereign,  seeming  at 
least  to  limit  its  own  power  by  declaring  it.  But  the  American 
assertion  of  Independence,  in  dissolving  our  connection  with  the 
government  of  the  mother  country,  left  us  no  substitute  for  that, 
and  so  imposed  upon  us  the  necessity  of  establishing  a  new  gov 
ernment  for  ourselves.  A  government  thus  created,  could  have 
no  powers  derivable  from  custom  :  could  have  no  authorities  but 
such  as  should  be  bestowed  upon  it  in  terms,  by  its  creators. 
While  these  creators,  in  the  very  fact  of  establishing  a  new  gov 
ernment  for  themselves,  thereby  asserted  and  manifested  their 
pre-existing  Right  to  do  so.  Hence,  it  resulted,  and  from  necessi 
ty  too,  that  while  all  the  Powers  of  all  our  governments  are  deriv 
ative  and  temporary,  the  Rights  of  those  who  created  these  gov 
ernments  are  self-existent  and  eternal. 

Therefore,  in  each  of  these  United  States,  the  People  by  whom 
all  our  governments  were  created  and  established,  are  the  only  le 
gitimate  Sovereign.  Governors  and  Magistrates  of  all  sorts,  are 
but  the  agents  and  servants  of  these  their  creators,  appointed  to 
attain  the  good  of  the  People,  by  the  exercise  cf  the  powers  and 
authorities  granted  to  them  for  that  purpose  by  the  People,  and 
responsible  to  the  People  for  the  manner  in  which  all  these  du 
ties  have  been  performed  or  neglected.  In  the  relations  between 
such  a  Sovereign  and  such  its  agents,  the  idea  of  a  compact  of  any 
kind,  can  lind  no  place.  In  governments  whose  powers  rest  upon 
force,  the  victor  sovereign  may  grant  to  its  vanquished  subjects, 
rights  and  immunities,  which  being  designed  for  the  benefit  of 


10  A   REVIEW   OF   THE 

the  grantees,  constitute  a  limit  upon  the  authority  of  the  grantor 
in  being  irrevocable.  Such  grants  may  well  be  termed  compacts 
between  the  granting  Sovereign  and  his  accepting  subjects, 
solemn  agreements  which  neither  party  may  of  right  alter,  with 
out  the  consent  of  the  other.  So  too,  in  governments  of  unknown 
antiquity,  according  to  the  theory  of  whose  unwritten  law  the 
governors  are  omnipotent,  even  if  this  vast  power  be  derived  not 
from  force  but  from  consent,  this  very  consent  constitutes  a  sol 
emn  compact. 

In  this  country,  however,  none  of  whose  governments  have 
been  established  by  force ;  where  the  origin  of  all  is  the  creation 
of  but  yesterday,  governors  can  filch  no  Power,  or  the  governed 
l.ose  any  Right  in  the  gloomy  obscurity  and  uncertainty  of  an 
tiquity.  Here  everything  is  clear  as  was  the  light  of  that 
blessed  day  on  which  was  proclaimed  the  sacred  truths,  that  here 
the  People  are  the  only  Sovereign  of  the  People;  that  here  mag 
istrates  of  all  sorts  are  but  the  agents  and  servants  of  this  Sover 
eign,  called  into  being  by  its  fiat,  solely  for  its  own  benefit,  de 
riving  all  their  authority  from  its  grants,  which  grants  are  revoca 
ble  at  the  pleasure  of  the  grantors,  because  intended  solely  for 
their  own  good.  But  the  idea  of  a  compact,  lawfully  revocable  at 
the  will  of  one  of  the  parties,  would  be  a  legal  paradox,  not  less 
absurd  than  the  moral  absurdity  of  a  compact  between  a  creator 
and  his  mere  creature  formed  for  the  Creator's  own  use. 

It  results  from  all  this,  that  whatever  of  truth  there  may  be  in 
the  theory  of  the  political  Philosophers  of  the  old  world,  which 
considers  government  there  as  a  compact  between  the  governors 
and  the  governed,  no  such  theory  can  be  true  here. 

JSTone  of  our  governments  can  ever  be  considered  as  such 
contracts. 

They  are  mere  revocable  procurations,  simple  delegations  of 
limited  and  temporary  authority,  executed  by  the  Sovereign 
People  to  their  attornies,  which  agents  are  thereby  authorized 
and  required  by  their  constituents,  to  accomplish  certain  pur 
poses,  by  certain  defined  means,  the  constituents  thereby  allowing 
and  confirming  whatsoever  shall  be  done  by  their  attornies,  under 
this  power,  and  in  pursuance  of  its  authorities,  but  nothing  else. 
— Here  governors  can  derive  no  power  jure  divino,  for  they  are 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT  JACKSON.  11 

known  to  be  the  mere  creatures  of  man's  will,  and  designed  for 
his  use.  Here  they  can  claim  no  omnipotent  authority,  for  the 
People  created  them,  and  the  creator  must  be  superior  to  his 
creature. 

Here  every  legitimate  power  exercised  by  governors  must  be 
derived  from  grant,  and  when  so  derived,  it  is  of  course  defined 
and  limited. 

Here  the  People  gave  all  that  is  given,  may  take  away  at  their 
pleasure  all  that  they  have  given,  and  we  all  unite  in  calling 
down  blessings  upon  that  Sovereign  People. 

B7jt  who  is  this  mighty  and  blessed  and  Sovereign  People, 
authors  and  preservers  of  the  most  stupendous  work  of  human  in 
vention  for  the  security  and  perpetuation  of  the  liberty  of  man  ? 

The  answer  to  this  enquiry  shall  constitute  the  subject  of  my 
next  number. 


12  A   REVIEW   OF  THE 


II. 

NORFOLK,  December  31,  1832. 

WHO  constitute  that  great  Corporation  and  body  politic  I  have 
called  The  People,  which  all  in  these  now  United  States  concur 
in  freely  acknowledging  as  their  liege  Lord  and  only  earthly  sov 
ereign  by  whose  fiat  all  our  governments  have  been  created 
and  endowed,  and  at  whose  will  they  may  at  any  time  be 
rightfully  dissolved  and  annihilated  ?  This  is  the  question,  which 
in  my  last  number  I  promised  to  examine  in  this;  and  I  now  will 
proceed  to  redeem  my  pledge. 

~No  American  is  so  ignorant  of  the  history  of  his  own  country, 
as  not  to  know,  that  prior  to  the  commencement  of  onr  Revolu 
tion,  there  did  not  exist  anywhere  on  this  vast  continent,  such  a 
body  politic  as  The  People.  Then  whoever  dwelt  in  America, 
was  either  a  savage  Indian,  or  the  liege  subject  of  some  European 
Sovereign.  None  of  the  various  savage  Tribes  who  wandered 
over  the  surface  of  much  of  this  continent,  had  then  ever  regard 
ed  themselves,  or  been  regarded  by  any  others  as  constituting  a 
fixed  Society  acknowledging  allegiance  to  any  Sovereign,  or  as 
constituting  that  moral  and  accountable  being  called  a  State. 
Had  any  civilized  man  or  set  of  men  presumed,  at  that  time,  to 
assert  his  or  their  sovereignty  here,  the  assertion  would  have  been 
considered  by  all  as  sedition  and  the  attempt  to  maintain  it  by 
force,  as  an  overt  act  of  treason  against  his  European  master ;  for 
all  white  men  in  America  then  claimed  to  be  the  loj^al  subjects 
of  some  such  Lord. 

It  is  true,  that  in  British  America,  there  existed  sundry  tracts 
of  country  delineated  upon  the  geographical  charts  as  British 
Colonies,  the  inhabitants  of  each  of  which  regions  were  formed 
into  separate  and  fixed  Societies,  whose  affairs  were  regulated  by 
long-established  governments,  the  power  of  each  of  which  gov- 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  13 

ernmerits  was  limited  by  the  particular  boundaries  of  its  own 
Colony,  tlieir  acts  having  no  obligation  or  force  beyond  the  local 
limits  of  such  territory.  None  of  these  governments,  however, 
exhibited  any  such  body  politic  as  The  People,  for  they  all  de 
rived  their  powers,  either  mediately  or  immediately,  from  the 
British  Kings,  whose  mere  agents  they  ever  had  been,  and  then 
were.  Nor  were  these  Societies  themselves  known  by  any  com 
mon  name  of  distinction,  but  only  as  the  Colony  of  Virginia,  the 
Colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  of  Canada,  of  Nova  Scotia,  and  the 
like ;  for  each  of  these  communities  was  then  separate  and  dis 
tinct,  in  all  things,  from  ever^  other,  the  Colonists  being  connect 
ed  by  no  other  social  or  political  tie,  save  that  of  the  allegiance 
which  all  acknowledged,  not  to  any  People,  but  to  the  Crown  of 
Great  Britain. 

British  misrule  converted  some  of  these  subjects,  whose  loyalty 
had  once  been  the  highest  boast,  into  sturdy  insurgents  against 
the  authority  they  had  before  delighted  to  acknowledge;  and  in 
triumphant  victory  they  achieved  that  glorious  Revolution,  which, 
under  different  auspices,  might  have  been  branded  as  a  traitorous 
Rebellion.  This  Revolution,  however,  in  dissolving  the  former 
governments,  did  not  dissolve  the  former  Societies ;  and  years 
before  it  was  perfected,  the  Revolt  had  taken  place.  'No  hope 
could  be  entertained  of  ultimate  success  to  this  Revolt,  unless 
some  new  government  should  be  established  in  the  stead  of  that 
which  had  been  dissolved,  to  order  and  direct  proceedings,  to 
sanction  acts,  to  speak  and  to  determine  for  all  its  members.  But 
by  whom,  and  for  whom,  was  or  could  such  an  Institution  as 
government,  be  then  ordained  and  established  here  ? 

The  general  answer  to  this  question  is  obvious.  As  all  gov 
ernment  supposes  the  pre-existence  of  some  established  Society, 
whose  affairs  it  is  designed  to  regulate,  and  the  rules  for  the  Civil 
conduct  of  whose  members  it  is  required  to  prescribe,  therefore, 
by  none  other  than  some  pre-existing  and  established  Society  can 
any  government  be  created  or  ordained.  Even  when  foreign 
force  is  the  foundation  of  government  (as  is  too  often  the  case), 
still  as  such  force  can  only  be  exerted  by  some  established  Society 
over  the  will  of  some  other  Society,  or  some  part  of  it,  when  this 
force  is  employed  with  success,  the  victor  Society,  while  dissolving 


14  A   REVIEW   OF  THE 

the  former  bonds  of  association  of  its  vanquished  antagonists,  incor 
porates  them  as  a  part  of  itself,  tinder  whatever  conditions  it 
may  please  to  prescribe,  and  so  creates  and  ordains  a  government 
for  them.  But  when  the  foundation  of  government  is  not  force, 
but  consent,  it  would  be  a  paradox  to  suppose  the  consent  of  any 
others  than  of  those  who  had  the  right  to  consent,  that  is  to  say, 
of  the  members  of  that  particular  pre-existing  and  established 
Society  for  the  regulation  of  whose  affairs  such  government  is 
designed.  None  then  but  the  pre-existing  established  Societies  in 
British  America,  could  ordain  a  government  for  such  Societies, 
except  by  force;  and  the  government  ordained  by  any  one  of 
these  Societies,  deriving  all  its  powers  from  it,  could  have  had  no 
authority  except  over  that  Society  itself. 

"When  we  apply  this  obvious  general  conclusion  to  the  facts  of 
the  particular  case,  we  must  all  be  at  once  convinced,  that  all  the 
primitive  governments  of  the  different  revolted  Colonies  of  Great 
Britain  must  have  been  ordained  and  established  by  the  several 
Societies  then  existing  in  the  revolted  Colonies  respectively,  and 
for  their  own  special  and  particular  benefit.  Therefore,  that  none 
of  these  governments  could  have  had  any  other  authority  than  to 
regulate  the  affairs  of  their  own  creators,  and  of  none  others.  I 
say,  that  these  governments  must  have  been  so  established  and  so 
endowed,  because  at  that  time  there  did  not  exist,  nor  ever  had 
existed,  any  such  society  or  community  as  The  People  of  America, 
or  of  the  British  Colonies  in  America,  or  of  the  revolted  British 
Colonies  in  America,  or  under  any  other  name  or  form,  save  that 
of  the  Colony  of  Georgia,  of  South  Carolina,  etc.,  etc.  Therefore, 
by  these  several  and  distinct  communities  alone,  all  our  primitive 
governments  must  have  been,  and  in  point  of  fact  were,  ordained 
and  established  ;  and  governments  being  so  established,  these 
several  communities,  their  respective  authors,  thereby  assumed 
to  be,  and  so  far  as  they  were  severally  concerned,  became,  that 
great  moral  and  accountable  being,  a  sovereign  State,  which, 
having  chosen  the  Democratic  form  for  its  government,  was 
known  and  styled  the  Commonwealth. 

Doubtless  the  different  revolted  Colonies  might,  if  they  had 
thought  proper,  have  consented  to  amalgamate  and  blend  them 
selves  together  into  one  single  Society,  and  then  have  established 


PEOCLAMATION   OF  PRESIDENT  JACKSON.  15 

any  sort  of  government  which  they  chose  for  this  new  com 
munity.  Had  they  have  done  so,  we  should  never  have  heard  of 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  or  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia. 
In  tliat  event,  none  of  these  former  communities  would  have 
possessed  sovereignty,  the  essential  attribute  of  a  State,  for  all 
would  have  sunk  and  dwindled  into  mere  municipalities,  bodies 
corporate  but  not  politic,  created  or  permitted  to  exist,  not  by 
their  own  will,  but  at  the  will  and  pleasure  of  this  other  more 
august  being  "  The  Nation  "  by  whatever  name  that  "  Nation  " 
might  have  been  pleased  to  baptise  itself.  But  the  patriot  Sages 
of  that  day  did  not  choose  so  to  do. 

Nor  was  this  decision  the  result  of  any  "  State  pride,"  or  de 
signed  "to  find  advocates"  in  any  "  prejudice,"  although  that 
prejudice  might  be  "honest."  No,  it  was  dictated  by  that  pro 
found  and  sagacious  wisdom  which  can  see  the  future  in  the  past. 
These  patriot  Sages  had  read,  and  well  knew,  that  Communities 
occupying  different  territories  of  wide  extent,  situated  under  dif 
ferent  climates,  professing  different  religions,  long  governed  by 
different  laws,  having  different  manners,  habits,  customs,  occupa 
tions,  and,  of  course,  many  different  and  conflicting  interests, 
could  never  be  melted  down  into  a  single  Society,  and  kept 
together  as  such,  but  by  a  much  stronger  power  than  any  which 
they  thought  it  either  safe  or  prudent  to  create.  Such  communi 
ties,  while  separate  and  distinct,  might  be  well  and  easi\y  con 
federated,  nay,  even  united,  for  many  purposes  useful  to  all  and 
essential  to  some,  and  still  continue  to  enjoy  liberty  in  peace. 
But  the  day  which  should  see  them  compressed  into  one  Society, 
to  be  governed  by  a  single  overruling  consolidated  government, 
would  be  the  eve  of  that  on  which  their  Freedom  must  be  sacri 
ficed  to  the  power  of  an  interested  majority,  in  the  very  temple 
dedicated  to  its  perpetual  worship,  unless  the  victim  might  be 
saved  by  arms. 

Convinced  of  this,  there  was  not  one  Statesman  in  any  of  these 
different  Colonies  at  that  day,  who  even  proposed,  or  who  even 
conceived,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  wild  and  mad  project  of  . 
establishing  a  single  Society,  to  be  composed  of  all  the  revolted 
Colonies,  and  to  be  regulated  by  a  consolidated <%  National "  govern 
ment,  stretching  itself  over  all.  This  conceptiou  was  the  product 


16  A   REVIEW   OF  THE 

of  an  after-day. — How  it  was  treated  when  it  was  first  presented,  I 
will  show  at  some  other  time. 

Does  any  one  doubt  now,  whether  the  first  governments  estab 
lished  in  these  now  United  States,  were  ordained  by  the  several 
revolted  colonies,  each  acting  as  a  Sovereign,  for  itself,  and  by 
itself,  without  any  reference  to  or  dependence  upon  any  other 
colony  ?  Let  him  consult  the  history  of  that  day,  and  he  will 
find  that  the  Revolt  was  not  a  simultaneous  movement  of  all  these 
Colonies,  but  was  effected  in  each  by  several  successive  acts  per 
formed  at  different  times.  Nay,  that  independent  governments 
had  actually  been  established  in  several  of  these  colonies,  and 
were  in  full  operation  before  any  declaration  of  Independence 
was  uttered  by  them  all  when  assembled  in  a  general  Congress. 
So  true  is  this,  that  even  to  this  day,  it  is  a  matter  of  amicable 
contest  among  several  of  these  different  communities,  now  States, 
which  of  them  is  entitled  to  the  honour  of  first  annulling  the 
Royal  Authority  within  its  own  domains,  and  proclaiming  itself  a 
patriot  Rebel. 

Massachusetts  claims  it  and  points  to  the  fields  of  Concord 
and  of  Lexington  to  prove  her  claim.  Virginia  claims  it,  and 
mentions  prior  acts  of  Treason  in  Arms  which  she  had  dared  to  do. 
North  Carolina  claims  it  and  shews  her  written  declaration  of 
Independence,  fearlessly  promulgated  to  the  world,  while  some 
others  were  yet  in  doubt  which  side  to  take  in  the  struggle  to 
maintain  their  rights.  To  Massachusetts  and  Virginia  she  might 
say,  your  acts  of  Treason  were  but  Insurrections,  for  when  you 
performed  them  you  still  professed  to  acknowledge  yourselves  de 
pendants  of  the  Authority  you  then  resisted  in  arms ;  but  mine  was 
the  first  act  of  glorious  Rebellion,  for  by  it  I  renounced  my  former 
allegiance  and  proclaimed  my  own  Sovereignty. 

Does  any  Virginian  sceptic  still  doubt  ?  I  refer  him  to  the  date 
of  our  first  Constitution,  to  prove  that  this  form  of  government 
was  ordained  and  declared  by  "the  Delegates  arid  Representatives 
of  the  good  People  of  Virginia"  assembled  in  Convention,  "before 
even  the  date  of  the  declaration  of  Independence,  and  long  before 
the  signing  and  promulgation  of  that  act.  Referring  him  also 
to  the  language  of  that  Constitution  and  of  its  accompanying 
Declaration  of  Rights,  I  ask  him  to  tell  me,  to  whom,  after  the 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  17 

promulgation  of  these  instruments,  did  the  People  of  Virginia 
owe  any  allegiance  ? 

He  will  not  say,  that  their  allegiance  was  then  due  to  their 
former  liege  Lord  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  for  in  these  acts, 
after  first  asserting  "  that  all  power  is  invested  in,  and  conse 
quently  derived  from  the  People — that  government  is,  or  ought  to 
be;  instituted  for  the  common  benefit,  protection  arid  security  of 
the  People — that  when  any  government  shall  be  found  inadequate 
or  contrary  to  these  purposes,  a  majority  of  the  community  hath 
an  indubitable,  unalienable,  and  indefeasible  right,  to  reform, 
alter,  or  abolish  it" — the  authors  proceed  to  declare,  "that  the 
government  of  this  Country,  as  formerly  exercised  under  the 
Crown  of  Great  Britain,  was  totally  dissolved." 

He  will  not  say  either,  that  this  allegiance  was  due  to  any 
of  the  other  Colonies,  for  none  of  them  had  any  stronger  claims 
to  the  allegiance  of  Virginia,  than  she  had  to  theirs — nor  that  it 
was  due  to  any  government  formed  by  all  the  revolted  Colonies, 
for  there  was  no  such  government  at  that  time — nor  to  the  People 
of  the  United  Colonies,  for  no  such  People  had  ever  existed,  nor 
were  these  Colonies  then  united  by  any  political  tie  whatever. 

Were  we  then  a  srano;  of  Banditti,  a  wretched  horde  of  bar- 

O         O 

barians,  a  mere  savage  tribe,  without  law  or  any  institution  of 
civil  polity  to  bind  our  society  together  by  the  strong  bond  of  a 
common  allegiance  ?  •' 

Assuredly,  Ave  were  not  such,  for  to  prevent  this  "  deplorable 
condition,  to  which  this  once  happy  country  must  be  reduced,, 
unless  some  regular  adequate  mode  of  civil  polity  was  speedily 
adopted,"  the  same  convention  in  the  very  act  which  declared  the 
total  dissolution  of  the  former  government,  ordained  "  the  future 
form  of  Government  of  Virginia."  In  this  form  of  Government 
was  proclaimed  the  name  of  this  new  body  politic  or  sovereign, 
by  which  it  was  created.  This  Sovereign  was  called,  "  The  Com 
monwealth  of  Virginia,"  and  all  our  people  pledged  themselves- 
through  their  Representatives  "  to  be  faithful  and  trus  to  this 
Commonwealth,"  and  called  upon  their  God  to  attest  the  solemn 
pledge.* 

*  The  form  of  the  present  Oath  of  Allegiance  in  Virginia,  or  "  the  assurance 
of  fidelity,"  as  it  is  here  called,  is  a  curious  and  important  instrument,  to  which- 1 
2 


18  A    REVIEW    OF   THE 

Was  tliis  pledge  violated  by  any  overt  act  of  force  ?  The  act 
was  declared  to  be  Treason,  ard  the  proper  punishment  of  this 
crime  was  announced.  If  it  be  true  then,  as  the  President  in  his 
Proclamation  says,  that "  Treason  is  an  offence  against  sovereignty, 
and  sovereignty  must  reside  with  the  power  to  punish  it,"  the 
Commonwealth  of  Virginia  which  defined  this  crime  against 
itself,  provided  for  its  punishment,  and  once  at  least  inflicted-,  it 
must  have  been  a  sovereign.*  But  if  ever  a  sovereign,  she  be- 

•hall  probably  refer  at  some  other  time.  It  runs  thus  :  "I ,  do  declare 

myself  a  citizen  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia  ;  I  relinquish  and  renounce 
the  character  of  subject  or  citizen  of  any  Prince  or  other  State  whatsoever ; 
and  abjure  all  allegiance  which  may  be  claimed  by  such  Prince  or  other  State ; 
and  I  do  swear  to  be  faithful  and  true  to  the  said  Commonwealth  of  Virginia, 
BO  long  as  I  continue  a  citizen  thereof.  So  help  me  God  "  (see  Revised  Code  of 
1819,  Vol.  I.,  p.  72). 

No  person  has  power  to  act  in  any  office,  legislative,  executive,  or  judi 
ciary,  before  he  shall  have  given  this  assurance ;  and  all  who  may  by  law 
be  required  to  give  assurance  of  fidelity,  must  for  that  purpose  take  this  oath. 
[See  the  Law  ut  supra,  which  was  re-enacted  on  the  7th  day  of  January,  1818.] 

*  The  law  of  Virginia  defining  and  punishing  Treason,  is  the  sanction  of  the 
oath  of  fidelity,  and  is  not  less  curious  and  important  than  the  form  of  that 
assurance.  It  is  in  these  words:  "  If  a  man  do  levy  war  against  the  Commonwealth 
in  the  same,  or  be  adherent  to  the  enemies  of  the  Commonwealth,  within  the  same, 
giving  to  them  aid  and  comfort  in  the  Commonwealth,  or  elsewhere,  and  thereof 
be  legally  convicted  of  open  deed,  by  the  evidence  of  two  sufficient  and  lawful 
witnesses,  or  his  own  voluntary  confession,  the  cases  above  rehearsed  shall  be 
judged  Treason  which  extendeth  to  the  Commonwealth,  and  the  persons  so  con 
victed,  and,  his  or  her  aiders,  abettors  and  counsellors,  being  thereof  convicted, 
shall  suffer  death,  by  hanging  by  the  neck  without  benefit  of  clergy.  Also, 
every  person  or  persons,  who  shall  erect  or  establish,  or  cause  or  procure  to  be 
erected  or  established,  any  government  separate  from,  or  independent  of  the 
government  of  Virginia,  within  the  limits  thereof,  unless  by  act  of  the  Legisla 
ture  of  this  Commonwealth  for  that  purpose  first  obtained  ;  or  who  shall, 
in  any  such  usurped  government,  hold  or  execute  any  office,  legislative, 
executive,  judiciary,  or  ministerial,  by  whatever  name  such  office  may  be  dis 
tinguished  or  called  ;  or  who  shall  swear,  or  otherwise  solemnly  profess  alle 
giance  or  fidelity  to  the  same  ;  or  who  shall,  under  pretext  of  authority  derived 
from,  or  protection  afforded  by,  such  usurped  government  resist  or  oppose  the 
due  execution  of  the  laws  of  this  Commonwealth,  shall  be  adjudged  guilty  of 
high  Treason,  and  shall  be  proceeded  against,  and  punished  in  the  same  man 
ner  as  other  Traitors  may  be  proceeded  against  and  punished."— [See  Revised 
Code  of  1819,  Vol.  I.,  p.  591.] 

The  scholar  may  read  the  rough  English  of  some  parts  of  this  statute,  as  he 
does  the  bald  and  confessedly  bad  Latin  of  Magna  Charta,  with  a  contemptuous 


PKOCLAMATICXff   OF  PRESIDENT  JACKSON.  19 

came  such  at  the  moment  when  she  "  totally  dissolved  "  the  former 
government,  and  in  establishing  a  new  form  of  government  for 
herself,  thereby  announcing  her  absolute  independence.  All 
these  acts  were  done  before  the  fourth  day  of  July,  1776.  By 
these  acts  she  then  became  free,  sovereign,  and  independent ;  and 
from  the  bottom  of  my  heart  do  I  unite  with  the  President  in  the 
fervent  prayer,  "  May  the  great  Ruler  of  Nations  grant  that  tile 
signal  blessings  with  which  he  has  favoured  us,  may  not,  by  the 
madness  of  party  or  personal  ambition,  be  disregarded  and  lost." 
But  what  is  this  ideal  being  of  which  every  Virginian  then  ac 
knowledged,  and  every  Virginian  still  acknowledges,  himself  to  be 
a  liege,  and  which  we  have  called  "  The  Commonwealth  of  Vir 
ginia."  It  is  the  People  of  Virginia.  The  members  of  that  estab 
lished  society  within  this  "  Ancient  Dominion,"  who  renouncing  all 
allegiance  to  a  former  Sovereign,  incorporated  themselves  into  a 
body  politic,  chose  to  bestow  upon  themselves  this  new  Corporate 
name,  in  order  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  the  succession  of  the  sov 
ereign  rights  which  they  had  then  assumed. — Most  of  these  patriots 
have  sunk  into  the  tomb,  and  the  few  who  remain  must  follow  them 
ere  long ;  but  long  after  the  last  of  them  shall  be  no  more,  that  body 
politic  and  corporate  styled  u  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia,"  will, 
by  the  blessing  of  God,  still  live ;  and  while  it  does  live,  this  name 
will  denote  the  People  of  Virginia  of  any  other  day,  as  expressively 
and  as  justly  as  it  did  those  by  whom  the  name  was  first  assumed.— 
That  Commonwealth  yet  lives,  and  remains  as  sovereign  now  as 
then,  unless  it  has  done  or  suffered  some  act  in  the  interim,  to 
abrogate  its  powers  or  annul  its  rights. 

The  people  of  Virginia,  in  shaking  off  their  former  allegiance, 
establishing  a  new  form  of  government  for  themselves,  and  so 
assuming  sovereignty  and  independence,  did  no  more  than  was 

sneer  ;  but  let  him  remember,  that  it  is  not  to  learning,  but  to  knowledge,  we 
are  indebted  for  our  Liberty.  Let  him  also  remember,  that  in  Virginia,  we  do 
not  value  highly  that  pedantry,  which  would  amend  the  provisions  of  old  instru 
ments  for  the  mere  purpose  of  making  their  style  more  smooth,  grammatical, 
or  classical.  Those  who  re-enacted  this  statute  on  the  28th  of  January,  1819, 
copied  the  rough  parts  of  it  from  the  old  act  of  1776,  which  was  believed  to  be 
an  accurate  paraphrase  of  a  very  old  English  statute,  written,  I  believe,  in  the 
Norman  French, 


20  A   KEVIEW   OF  THE 

done,  sooner  or  later,  by  each  and  every  one  of  the  thirteen 
revolted  Colonies  of  Great  Britain. 

Each  of  these,  like  Virginia,  became,  in  virtue  of  such  acts, 
\j  that  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  body  politic  called  a  State; 
and  becoming  such,  it  took  upon  itself  any  corporate  name  it 
chose  to  adopt.  But  as  all  the  governments  then  established 
were  Kepresentative  Democracies,  this  corporate  name,  whether  it 
was  the  Commonwealth  or  any  other,  was  designed  to  denote  the 
free  people  of  that  pre-existing  and  established  society  before 
known  by  the  name  of  some  of  the  revolted  British  Colonies. 

If,  then,  we  ask,  who  constituted  at  that  time  that  great  Cor 
poration  and  Sovereign  body  politic  which  I  have  called  The 
People,  which  is  the  Lord  of  all  in  these  now  United  States,  the 
answer  is,/not  the  People  of  all  the  revolted  Colonies  collectively, 
but  the  People  of  each  of  them  respectively.  All  individuals,  be 
ing  members  of  any  one  of  these  separate,  distinct,  and  independ 
ent  masses,  owed  faith,  and  truth,  and  allegiance  to  that  particu 
lar  mass,  which,  under  some  selected  corporate  name,  designed  to 
distinguish  it  from  all  others,  was  then  proclaimed  as  their  only 
earthly  sovereign. 

Such  were  the  People  of  these  Colonies  then.  As  individuals 
they  were  subjects,  as  a  body  politic  and  corporate  they  were  the 
sovereign  of  these  subjects. 

Such  sovereigns  and  such  subjects  these  People  have  been  ever 
since,  and  still  are,  unless  (as  I  have  said  before)  they  have  done 
or  suffered  some  act,  during  the  interval  of  time  which  has  elapsed 
since  they  took  upon  themselves  these  characters,  to  change  this, 
their  moral  and  political  condition.  Have  they  done  so  ?  This 
is  the  question  which  I  propose  to  examine  in.  my  next  Number. 


PROCLAMATION   OF  PRESIDENT  JACKSON.  21 


IIL 


NORFOLK,  January  2,  1833. 


THE  People  of  eacli  of  the  several  revolted  Colonies  of 
Great  Britain,  having  become  free,  sovereign,  and  independent 
States,  in  the  manner  stated  in  my  last  number,  must  necessarily 
continue  to  be  such  Sovereigns  now,  unless  they  have  done  or 
suffered  some  act,  since  this  their  Sovereignty  was  assumed, 
whereby  its  rights  and  powers  have  been  annulled.  Have  they 
done  or  suffered  any  such  act  ? 

This  is  the  question,  which,  in  my  last  number,  I  proposed  to 
examine  in  this.  But  a  reperusal  of  the  Proclamation  of  the  Pres 
ident,  since  this  promise  was  made,  having  shewn  me,  what  I  had 
not  before  observed,  that  doubts  are  therein  cast  upon  the  truth 
of  my  proposition  which  asserted  the  primitive  sovereignty  of  the 
several  States,  although  this  is  often  admitted,  by  necessary  im 
plication,  at  least,  in  many  other  parts  of  this  very  instrument  it 
self,  I  think  it  right  to  endeavor  to  remove  all  these  doubts  before 
I  proceed  further  in  the  execution  of  the  task  I  have  undertaken. 

During  the  various  discussions,  which  the  agitation  of  the  ques 
tions  as  to  the  extent  of  the  legitimate  powers  of  the  present  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  called  forth,  in  former  days,  this 
asserted  original  sovereignty  of  the  States  was  admitted  and 
claimed  by  both  sides,  and  was  made  the  very  basis  of  all  the  ar 
guments  of  Federalists  and  Democrats  respectively. 

To  these  discussions,  there  was  then  brought,  by  either  party, 
as  much  of  zeal,  of  industry,  of  wisdom,  and  of  laborious  research, 
as  have  ever  been  manifested  in  this  country,  before  or  since  ; 
and  the  discussions  were  conducted,  on  either  hand,  by  many  of 
the  Patriots  of  the  Revolution,  who  were  familiar  with  all  its 
events,  because  they  had  been  actors  and  advisers  in  that  great 
scene  ab  initio. 


22  A  REVIEW  OF  THE 

Nay,  it  used  to  be  then  contended,  by  either  party,  that  the 
jealous  retainer  by  the  States  of  their  primitive  rights  of  sover 
eignty,  had  caused  the  necessity  for  the  then  new  Federal  Consti 
tution. 

But,  like  Moliere's  mock  doctor,  "  nous  avons  change  tout  cela," 
and  the  new  College  of  Politicians,  having  younger,  and  of  course 
wiser  heads,  have  of  late  discovered,  that  all  this  was  a  mistake. 
The  fashionable  doctrine  of  the  present  day  seems  to  be,  that 
these  States  never  were  Sovereign  ;  that  there  was,  from  the  be 
ginning,  some  great  Central  Sovereign  power,  abiding  somewhere 
else  than  in  the  several  States,  of  which  they  were  subjects,  and 
all  their  people  lieges.  In  illustration  of  this  new  doctrine,  the 
Proclamation  says,  that  "  in  our  colonial  state,  although  depend 
ent  upon  another  power,  we  very  early  considered  ourselves  as 
connected  by  common  interest  with  each  other. — Leagues  were 
formed  for  common  defence;  and  before  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  we  were  known  in  our  aggregate  character  as  The 
United  Colonies  of  America.  That  decisive  and  important  step 
was  taken  jointly.  We  declared  ourselves  a  nation  by  a  joint, 
not  by  several  acts." 

The  exceeding  caution  in  which  this  passage  is  penned,  its  in 
tended  assertions  of  doctrine,  while  seeming  to  narrate  facts, 
merely,  and  the  opening  it  obviously  and  designedly  leaves,  for 
escape  from  these  doctrines,  tinder  the  fog  and  smoke  of  verbal 
criticism,  should  the  doctrines  be  thereafter  controverted,  may 
perhaps  excite  the  admiration  of  minds  trained  or  training  in  the 
mazes  of  diplomacy. 

But  when  found  in  a  State  paper,  uttered  by  the  Chief  Magis 
trate,  and  announced  by  him,  as  being  intended  for  the  edification 
and  instruction  of  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  it  can  never  meet 
the  approbation  of  the  candid  and  ingenuous. 

Its  obvious  purpose  is  to  assert,  as  a  political  dogma,  that  the 
revolted  Colonies  became  one  Sovereign  Nation,  before  they  sev 
erally  assumed  sovereignty  upon  themselves  as  individual  States; 
and  so  to  prove,  that  the  States  never  were  sovereign.  But  as 
this  new  doctrine  was  in  direct  conflict  with  all  our  past  opinions, 
and  in  seeming  opposition  to  much  of  our  past  history,  it  would 
not  do  to  blurt  it  in  the  public  face  at  once,  as  doctrine,  therefore 


PROCLAMATION  OF  PRESIDENT  JACKSON.  23" 

it  is  presented  seemingly  as  a  simple  fact.  Nay,  it  is  not  exhib 
ited  as  a  substantive  fact,  but  in  the  modest  guise  of  a  mere  infer 
ence  from  other  facts.  These  other  facts,  too,  are  asserted  in  se 
lected  terms  of  such  broad  and  general  signification,  that  it  is 
difficult  to  fix  their  precise  meaning.  If,  seeing  the  necessary 
tendency  and  effect  of  the  doctrine  designed  to  be  put  forth  in  thia 
passage,  any  one  denies  its  truth,  such  may  be  immediately  met 
by  the  assertion,  that  it  is  not  stated  as  doctrine,  but  as  historical 
fact  merely.  If  it  be  denied  as  such  a  fact,  it  may  be  immediately 
said,  that  it  is  not  asserted  as  a  substantive  fact,  but  only  as  one 
inferred  from  others  previously  stated.  If  the  correctness  of  this 
inference  is  questioned,  then  commences  a  discussion  as  to  the 
true  meaning  of  the  words  employed  to  state  the  facts  from  which 
the  inference  is  made;  and  this  discussion,  if  it  convicts  the  au 
thor  of  error,  will  also  furnish  him  with  an  excuse  for  saying,  that 
he  is  no  scholar,  not  skilled  in  "  metaphysical  subtlety,"  and  there 
fore,  may  have  used  terms  inappropriate  to  convey,  accurately, 
his  own  meaning,  which,  however,  is  precisely  yours.  But  if  the 
true  signification  of  the  words  employed  in  this  apparent  and  sim 
ple  narrative,  is  once  admitted  to  be  that  in  which  they  are  obvi 
ously  used,  and  if  the  facts  themselves,  so  told,  are  conceded,  then 
no  logical  mind  can  escape  from  the  conclusion  derived  from  such 
facts,  and  the  purpose  of  this  argument,  which  is  to  disprove  the 
original  sovereign  rights  of  the  States,  is  fully  attained. 

The  ingenuity  of  an  argument  thus  constructed,  undoubtedly 
has  merit,  but  it  is  not  such  merit  as  ingenuous  candour  can  ever 
claim.  It  imposes  upon  all  who  may  deny  its  conclusion,  the  la 
borious  task  of  unravelling  a  long  tissue  of  supposed  errors,  and 
when  they  have  done  so,  it  exposes  them  to  the  sneer  of  having 
laboured  to  disprove  what,  it  will  then  be  said,  was  never  af 
firmed. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  they  pass  by  such  things  unnoticed,  they 
immediately  fall  into  the  snare  laid  for  them,  from  which  they 
cannot  then  easily  extricate  themselves. — For  one,  I  greatly  pre 
fer  to  undertake  the  labour,  and  to  subject  myself  to  the  sneer, 
than  to  incur  the  other  hazard.  Therefore,  I  will  bring  the  whole 
of  this  narrative  and  argumentative  passage  to  the  test  of  a  strict 
analysis.  Its  importance  justifies,  its  art  requires  this. 


24  A  BEVIEW   OF  THE 

The  object  of  this  argument,  (confessed  in  its  conclusion,)  is  to 
prove  that  the  People  of  some  of  these  now  United  States,  \vhile 
in  their  colonial  state,  declared  themselves  to  be  a  Nation,  by  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  made  in  1776,  under  which  they 
became  "  One  People."  The  necessary  and  inevitable  result  of 
this  would  be,  that  the  People  having  once  resolved  themselves 
into  one  Nation,  could  not  thereafter  create  themselves  into  sepa 
rate  and  independent  sovereignties,  otherwise  than  by  force,  or 
by  common  consent. 

But  as  no  one  has  presumed,  as  yet  at  least,  to  establish,  or  to 
attempt  to  establish  sovereignty  here,  by  force ;  and  as  there  ex 
ists  not  the  slightest  memorial  of  any  common  consent  on  the 
part  of  this  supposed  Nation,  to  its  own  dismemberment,  there 
fore  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  never  could  have  existed.  The  au 
thor  of  this  Proclamation,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  aware  of  the 
fact,  which  I  stated  in  my  last  number,  that  before  the  declara 
tion  of  Independence  in  July  1776,  the  People  of  Virginia  cer 
tainly,  and  of  several  of  the  other  Colonies,  I  believe,  had  sever 
ally  announced  their  own  sovereignty  and  independence,  in 
totally  dissolving  their  former  government,  and  ordaining  new 
governments  for  themselves  respectively.  But  if  such  a  fact  had 
been  known  to  him,  it  would  not  have  changed  the  intended  effect 
of  his  conclusion  ;  because,  as  this  new  Nation  is  said  to  have 
been  created  by  the  People,  a  part  of  which  People  the  creators 
of  State  sovereignties  wer3,  their  last  act  would  of  course  have  ab 
rogated  and  annulled  their  first,  and  so  put  an  end  to  the  sover 
eignty  which  they  had  created  but  a  short  time  before.  So  that 
the  Sovereignty  of  all  the  States  which  had  declared  themselves 
sovereign  before  the  declaration  of  Independence  in  July  1776,  is 
as  certainly  annulled,  as  the  existence  of  the  sovereignty  of  those 
States  who  had  not  then  declared  it,  is  prevented,  by  the  mere  as 
sertion  of  this  simple  fact  of  our  existence  as  one  nation,  if  that 
fact  was  true.  A  matter  so  important  in  its  consequences  ought 
not,  and  would  not  be  conceded,  to  the  mere  say-so  of  any  man, 
although  that  man  might  be  the  President;  therefore,  it  became 
indispensably  necessary,  that  he  should  prove  it.  Hence  the  at 
tempt  to  do  so. — Let  me  now  examine  what  these  proofs  are. 

As  the  object  was  to  prove  the  existence  of  a  Nation,  the  first 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT  JACKSON.  25 

step  of  the  process  must  necessarily  be  to  prove  the  pre-exist  en  ce 
of  a  community.  Government  being  superinduced  upon  this 
community,  it  would  then  become  a  Nation,  so  far  at  least  as  all 
the  members  of  that  community  were  concerned.  The  first  point 
to  be  proved,  then,  was  the  existence  of  a  community  composed 
of  all  the  People  who  were  afterwards  to  become  the  subjects  of 
the  nation.  N~ow  how  is  this  established  ? 

"  In  our  colonial  state,"  says  the  President,  "  although  depend 
ent  on  another  power,  we  very  early  considered  ourselves  con 
nected  by  common  interest  with  each  other."  A  more  flimsy 
pretext,  from  which  to  infer  the  existence  of  a  single  community, 
could  not  easily  have  been  selected;  and  yet  a  more  ingenious 
mode  of  getting  up  this  pretext  could  not  well  have  been  devised. 
Mark,  no  social  connection  of  any  sort,  is  affirmed  to  have  actually 
existed;  it  is  merely  said,  that  we  very  early  considered  ourselves 
as  connected.  And  by  what  was  this  imaginary  connection  con 
stituted?  Were  we  inhabitants  of  a  common  territory,  the  va 
cant  and  unoccupied  parts  of  which  were  admitted  to  belong  to 
all  ?  No. — Did  we  profess  the  same  religious  faith  ?  No. — Did 
there  exist  any  one  institution,  which  having  been  created  or  pre 
served  by  all,  was  therefore  common  to  all  ?  N^o. — By  what  tie 
then  did  this  People  consider  themselves  to  be  connected,  in  their 
colonial  state  ?  Why,  by  the  single  tie  of  a  supposed  common  in 
terest.  No  man  before  President  Jackson,  ever  thought  of  infer 
ring  the  existence  of  a  community  from  such  a  fact,  which  if  be 
lieved  to  be  sufficient  to  produce  that  effect,  would  consolidate, 
probably,  one-half  the  People  of  the  whole  world  into  one  com 
munity,  and  by  so  doing,  would  dissolve  more  than  the  half  of  all 
the  societies  now  existing,  whose  members  do  not  even  consider 
themselves  connected  by  any  such  tie. 

But  perhaps  it  will  be  said,  that  I  do  the  President  wrong,  in  sup 
posing  that  he  meant  the  People  when  he  says  a  we,"  that  by  this  per 
sonal  pronoun  he  did  not  mean  to  denote  all  the  Colonists,  in  their 
individual,  but  in  the  social  characters  which  they  had  long  had,  and 
which  was  denoted  by  the  term  Colonies.  If  so,  this  sentence  be 
comes  the  simple  annunciation  of  a  well-known  historical  fact, 
proved  by  numerous  documents  in  our  archives,  that  even  in  their 
colonial  state,  the  several  Colonies  considered  themselves  as  connect- 


26  A   REVIEW   OF  THE 

ed  with  each  other,  by  a  common  interest.  But  as  all  these  docu 
ments  while  establishing  this  fact,  establish  also,  that  this  belief 
of  a  common  interest  was  neither  designed  or  ever  supposed  to 
amalgamate  the  different  Colonies,  by  whom  it  was  entertained, 
into  a  single  community,  but  merely  to  invite  to  their  co  operation 
confederacy  and  union  as  distinct  independent  communities,  it  is 
not  easy  to  discern  how  from  such  a  fact,  the  existence  of  a  single 
community  could  be  inferred.  Therefore,  and  as  the  use  made 
of  the  assertion  was  afterwards  manifest,  I  was  bound  to  consider 
its  meaning  to  be  such  as  I  have  stated  ;  especially  as  I  found 
this  word  "  we,"  in  an  address  of  the  President  to  his  fi  fellow-citi 
zens,  the  People." 

So  much  for  the  first  proposition  of  this  argument,  which  if 
considered  in  one  light,  asserts  a  truth  directly  in  contradiction 
to  its  condition  ;  and  if  considered  in  another,  asserts  not  only 
an  unknown  fact,  but  one  unimportant  if  it  could  be  known.  In 
which  of  these  lights  it  was  designed  to  be  seen,  let  the  rules  of 
the  English  language,  and  the  conclusion  of  the  argument  itself, 
determine. 

Having  inferred  the  existence  of  one  great  community,  com 
posed  of  all  the  People  of  the  different  revolting  Colonies,  while 
yet  in  their  colonial  state,  the  next  step  necessary  to  be  taken  in 
the  argument  designed  to  prove  their  subsequent  existence  as  one 
nation,  wras  to  superinduce  a  government  upon  this  great  communi 
ty :  for  a  nation  without  a  government,  would  indeed  be  a  nonde 
script,  as  horrible  in  the  Political,  as  any  of  the  fabled  monsters 
of  the  natural  world.  Here,  as  before,  it  would  not  do  to  affirm 
the  establishment  of  any  such  government,  at  the  time  referred 
to,  that  is  to  say,  "in  our  colonial  state,"  as  a  positive  fact,  for 
this  would  be  in  direct  contradiction  of  the  other  affirmation,  of 
our  dependence  on  another  power  •  and  of  such  a  fact  too,  there 
does  not  exist  any  scintilla  of  proof  in  any  of  our  histories  or 
State  papers.  Therefore,  the  existence  of  such  a  government, 
like  that  of  the  community,  was  to  be  inferred.  Now  from  what 
is  this  second  inference  to  be  made  ? 

"  Leagues  were  formed  for  common  defence,"  says  the  Presi 
dent  ;  and  as  leagues  can  only  be  formed  by  communities,  ac 
knowledging  some  government,  authorized  to  speak  and  so  to 


PROCLAMATION   OF  PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  27 

contract  for  them,  if  the  fact  be  conceded  that  Leagues  were  formed 
by  this  great  community,  it  establishes  beyond  doubt,  not  only 
the  actual  existence  of  such  a  community,  but  of  its  government, 
too.  But  mark  the  caution  displayed  in  this  assertion,  also.  The 
President  does  not  say,  in  terms,  at  least,  that  these  Leagues  were 
so  formed,  but  most  sedulously  avoids  to  state  by  whom,  or  with 
whom,  they  were  formed.  The  cause  of  this  studied  obscurity  is 
not  difficult  to  be  explained.  If  it  had  been  asserted  as  an  histor 
ical  fact,  that  in  their  colonial  state,  the  Colonists  being  connected 
together  as  one  community,  had,  in  that  character,  entered  into 
any  League  whatever,  tins  fact  could  not  have  been  proved,  sim 
ply  because  it  neither  is,  or  could  be,  true.  But  if  it  had  been 
said,  that  these  Leagues  were  formed  by  the  different  colonies 
with  each  other,  as  separate  and  independent  communities,  in  as 
serting  this  well-known  historical  truth  easily  to  be  proved  by  a 
reference  to  the  Leagues  themselves,  the  President  would  huve 
dissolved  completely  his  imaginary  great  community,  and  with 
it  the  government  to  regulate  the  affairs  of  this  supposed  Nation. 

Nay,  he  then  would  have  established,  beyond  doubt,  the  sepa 
rate  and  independent  existence  of  the  colonies,  as  acknowledged 
by  themselves,  in  such  Leagues. 

To  avoid  this  dilemma,  the  author  of  this  Proclamation  most 
cautiously  suppresses  the  fact  by  whom  and  with  whom  these 
Leagues  were  made.  Yet,  as  they  were  certainly  made  for  "  com 
mon  defence,"  all  those  who  may  be  disposed  to  believe  that 
"  we"  in  the  first  sentence  denoted  the  Colonists  as  individuals, 
and  not  the  colonies  as  communities,  will  of  course  conclude,  that 
these  Leagues  were  made  by  the  same  "  we,"  with  some  commu 
nity  foreign  to  themselves.  While  those  who  understand  "we"  in 
a  different  sense,  will  arrive  at  a  conclusion  diametrically  opposed 
to  this, — so  much  for  the  second  member  of  this  argument,  which, 
like  the  first,  is  either  true  or  false,  according  to  the  meaning 
intended  to  be  annexed  by  its  author,  to  the  words,  "  we "  and 
"  our." 

Having  inferred  the  existence  of  a  supposed  community,  and 
also  inferred  a  government  for  it,  in  the  mode  I  have  stated,  the 
next  thing  needful  was  to  bestow  a  name  upon  this  infant  Nation. 
But,  as  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  infer  a  name  which  could 


28  A   REVIEW    OF  THE 

not  liave  had  any  previous  existence,  the  President  was  compelled 
to  state  thrs  name  positively.  Therefore,  he  next  says,  that  "be 
fore  thi;  declaration  of  independence,  we  were  known  in  our  ag 
gregate  charactsr  as  The  United  Colonies  of  America."  The 
attempt  to  infer  any  fact,  from  any  name,  merely,  would  be  con- 
sidered,  generally,  rather  as  an  assumption  than  an  inference. 
But  to  infer  the  fact  of  a  single  Nation,  from  the  name  of  many 
United  Colonies,  or  of  many  Colonies  United,  whether  in  America 
or  anywhere  else,  is  not  only  a  groundless  assumption,  but  a  plain 
perversion  of  the  meaning  of  words,  unless  United  means  Consol 
idated.  The  President  seems  to  have  been  aware  of  this,  there 
fore,  to  do  away,  so  far  as  he  could,  the  effect  of  his  own  strong 
words,  United  Colonies,  used,  apparently,  to  shew,  that  the  Colo 
nies  were  united,  and  not  consolidated  into  one  mass  or  Nation, 
he  tells  us,  that  "we  were  known  in  our  aggregate  character  "  by 
this  name. — Although  I  cannot  help  considering  this  phrase  of 
"aggregate  character  "  as  very  infelicitous,  especially  when  ap 
plied  to  United  Colonies,  yet  I  freely  admit  that  the  excuse  of  the 
Rhetorician  may  be  found  in  the  necessity  the  Politician  felt  to 
employ  it.  There  were  two  differing  parties  interested  in  the 
matter  he  was  examining,  and  he  was  desirous  to  please  both ; 
therefore,  from  the  beginning  of  his  argument,  he  had  used  terms 
so  general,  that  either  might  apply  them  to  their  own  side  :  but 
when  he  came  to  give  a  name  to  his  Nation,  he  found  that  so 
clearly  indicating  that  it  was  not  one  consolidated  mass,  but  many 
distinct  masses  united,  merely,  it  was  necessary  to  weaken  the 
force  of  this.  Hence,  he  tells  us  that,  although  we  were  united 
by  name,  yet  in  character  we  were  aggregated,  that  is  to  say, 
consolidated. 

From  what  source  the  President  may  have  derived  his  informa 
tion  as  to  aggregate  character,  except  from  its  name,  I  know  not. 
But  if  his  information  as  to  our  character  is  as  inaccurate  as  his 
representation  of  our  name,  but  little  reliance  should  be  paid  to 
it.  I  have  before  me  a  copy  of  the  Journal  of  the  first  Congress, 
which  met  at  a  the  Carpenter's  Hall,  in  the  City  of  Philadelphia, 
on  Monday,  the  5th  day  of  September,  1774."  In  this  first  and 
most  authentic  document,  which  any  one  can  consult,  to  discover 
either  their  name  or  character,  at  that  day,  both  the  one  and  the 


PROCLAMATION   OF  PKESIDENT   JACKSON.  29 

other  is  thus  described  :  "  We,  the  Delegates  of  the  several  Colo 
nies  of  New  Hampshire,"  etc.,  etc.,  (naming  each),  "  deputed  to 
represent  them  in  a  Continental  Congress."  Under  this  name, 
and  in  this  character,  was  their  first  great  act  of  Association  en 
tered  into,  for  non-importation,  non-consumption,  and  non  export 
ation,  and  recommended  uto  the  Provincial  Conventions,  and  to 
the  Committees  in  the  respective  Colonies,"  to  be  carried  into 
effect  by  them.  Under  the  name  and  character  of  f;  The  Dele 
gates  appointed  by  the  several  English  Colonies  of  New  Hamp 
shire,"  etc.,  (naming  each),  "  to  consider  of  their  grievances  in. 
General  Congress,"  was  their  next  great  act,  the  Address  to  the 
People  of  Great  Britain,  uttered  under  the  name  and  character 
of  "  We,  the  delegates  of  the  Colonies  of  New  Hampshire,"  etc., 
(naming  each),  "  deputed  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  said  Colonies, 
to  represent  them  in  a  general  Congress,  to  consult  together,"  etc., 
was  the  Address  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  Province  of  Quebec, 
put  forth.  Under  the  name  and  character  of  "  We,  your  Majes 
ty's  faithful  subjects  of  the  Colonies  of  New  Hampshire,"  etc., 
(naming  each),  "  in  behalf  of  ourselves  and  of  the  inhabitants  of 
these  Colonies,  who  have  deputed  us  to  represent  them  in  general 
Congress,"  was  the  Address  to  the  King  adopted,  which  waii  the 
last  act  of  that  enlightened  and  patriotic  body,  the  first  Congress. 
In  short,  there  cannot  be  found  a  single  act  of  the  first  Congress, 
in  which  that  body  denominated  itself  as  "The  United  Colonies 
of  America,"  or  in  which  its  members  denominated  themselves 
as  delegates  of  or  to  any  body  of  that  name.  So  far  from  it,  all 
these  acts  shew,  upon  their  very  face,  that  they  were  the  acts  of 
individuals,  representing  respectively,  riot  one,  but  several  con 
stituent  bodies,  and  these  individuals,  as  the  representatives  of 
such  constituent  bodies,  respectively,  were  said  to  be  assembled 
in  a  general  Congress.  In  further  proof  of  which  it  may  also  be 
remarked,  that  the  very  first  rule  established  to  regulate  the  pro 
ceedings  of  this  Congress  was,  "  that  in  determining  questions, 
each  Colony  or  Province  should  have  one  vote,"  without  any  ref 
erence  to  the  number  of  its  delegates  present,  or  to  its  importance 
in  any  sense  whatever. 

Upon  such  evidence,  I  think  myself  justified  in  saying,  that, 
although,  at  some  subsequent  period,  it  may  possibly  be  found, 


30  A   REVIEW   OF   THE 

that  the  delegates  united  in  a  general  Congress,  in  some  of  their 
ordinary  proceedings,  and  for  brevity's  sake,  may  perhaps  have 
spoken  of  themselves  as  the  delegates  of  the  United  Colonies,  yet 
in  all  solemn  acts  they  are  differently  described.  Thus,  in  the 
most  important  paper  which  they  could  utter,  the  Commission  to 
Gen.  Washington  as  Commander-in-Chief,  granted  on  the  17th 
June,  1775,  they  style  themselves  "  The  Delegates  of  the  United 
Colonies  of  New  Hampshire,"  etc.,  (naming  each,  as  before),  and 
by  that  name,  and  in  that  character,  grant  to  him  all  the  rights 
and  authorities  which  he  then  acquired.  Therefore,  the  President 
seems  to  have  as  little  ground  for  bestowing  this  new  name  of  the 
United  Colonies  of  America  upon  all  the  revolted  Colonies  or  Col 
onists  of  that  day,  as  he  has  to  bestow  upon  the  Colonists  any 
such  aggregate  character  as  that  under  which  he  is  supposed  to 
assert  that  they  were  then  known. 

Whether  by  the  declaration  of  independence,  uttered  in  1776, 
either  in  the  manner  in  which  "that  decisive  and  important  step 
was  taken,"  or  in  the  language  of  that  instrument,  "  we  declared 
ourselves  a  Nation,"  and  so  annulled  or  prevented  all  the  sover 
eign  rights  of  the  States,  is  a  question  I  should  have  examined  in 
this  number,  except  for  the  reason  I  have  before  stated. 

But,  Mr.  Editor,  I  have  already  occupied  so  much  of  your 
space,  that  I  must  not  intrude  upon  it  at  present,  further  than  to 
say,  that  this  declaration,  being  i\\&  first  act  which  occurs  in  our 
history,  that  can  be,  or  is  supposed  to  annul  any  of  the  Sovereign 
rights  of  the  States,  its  minute  examination  made  a  part  of  my 
original  plan,  which  will  be  prosecuted  in  my  next  number. 


PROCLAMATION  OF  PRESIDENT  JACKSON.  31 


IV. 


NORFOLK,  January  4,  1833. 


THE  Declaration  of  Independence  uttered  in  1776,  was  consid 
ered,  at  that  day,  as  the  most  important  act  which  had  ever  oc 
curred  in  this  Country,  and  subsequent  time  lias  not  weakened 
the  sentiment  it  was  then  intended  to  inculcate. 

We  still  continue  to  commemorate  it  annually,  on  the  day  of  its 
date,  when  all  the  citizens  of  these  now  United  States,  join  with 
one  accord,  in  humble  adoration  and  joyful  thanksgiving  to  that 
Divine  Providence,  under  whose  protection,  the  great  truths  it 
announces  were  afterwards  maintained  and  established. 

But  if  the  effect  of  this  Declaration,  was  to  consolidate  all  the 
then  Colonies,  by  whose  representatives  it  was  made,  as  one  na 
tion,  and  to  amalgamate  their  inhabitants  into  "  One  People," 
the  Fourth  day  of  July,  instead  of  being  celebrated  as  a  Jubilee, 
would  probably  be  spent  much  more  appropriately  in  weeping 
and  in  wailing.  Was  such  the  true  nature  and  intended  effect  of 
this  Declaration  ?  This  is  the  question  I  propose  now  to  examine. 

In  speaking  of  this  Declaration,  the  President  says  in  his  Proc 
lamation,  "  that  decisive  and  important  step  was  taken  jointly — 
we  declared  ourselves  a  Nation  by  a  joint,  not  by  several  acts." 
It  is  obvious  from  this  passage,  that  its  author  designed  to  estab 
lish  the  existence  of  a  Nation,  not  less  by  the  manner  in  which 
this  Declaration  was  made,  than  by  the  actual  assertions  of  the 
instrument  itself:  for  not  satisfied  with  stating  that  this  step  was 
taken  jointly ,  he  adds,  that  by  such  a  joint  act  we  declared  our 
selves  a  Nation.  I  will  examine  into  the  truth  of  all  these  asser 
tions,  before  I  give  my  own  views  of  the  subject. 

A  joint  act,  ex  m  termini^  implies  the  co-operation  of  several 
agents,  by  whose  united  and  joined  agencies  it  has  been  produced. 


82  A  KEVIEW  OF  THE 

Hence,  it  would  be  a  very  great  solecism,  to  speak  of  any  act 
done  by  one  agent  only,  as  a  joint  act;  and  therefore,  no  corpo 
rate  act  is  ever  properly  described,  as  a  joint  act  of  a  Corporation, 
even  when  such  a  body  is  composed  of  many  members:  for  al 
though  the  members  may  be  many,  the  Corporation  is  but  one, 
and  the  act,  if  a  corporate  act,  must  be  performed  by  that  one 
body  only.  It  is  not  every  act  effected  by  the  co-operation  of 
several  agents,  however,  that  is  properly  termed  a  joint  act.  Be 
cause,  although  considered  in  reference  to  the  number  of  its  au 
thors,  every  single  act  accomplished  by  the  co-operation  of  several 
agents,  must  be  their  joint  act,  yet  considered  in  reference  to  its 
intended  effects,  as  these  may  be  many,  and  attach  to  all,  to  each, 
or  to  some  only  of  its  agents,  the  act  is  regarded  as  either  joint  or 
several,  according  to  the  nature  of  these  intended  effects.  But  as 
the  intent  of  the  act,  cannot  possibly  be  inferred  from  the  number 
of  agents  co-operating  to  its  accomplishment,  while  it  is  admitted, 
that  several  as  well  as  joint  effects  may  and  do  result  even  from  a 
joint  act,  the  nature  of  such  an  act  can  only  be  ascertained  from 
the  intention  of  the  agents.  This  intention  must  always  be  sought 
for,  and  generally,  is  best  manifested,  in  the  declarations  of  the 
agents  employed  to  perform  the  act,  especially  when  these  decla 
rations  are  uttered  in  the  act  itself,  and  of  course  at  the  time  of 
performing  it.  If  these  plain  propositions,  which  ever^  Tyro  has 
hitherto  acknowledged  to  be  true,  are  still  admitted  to  be  correct, 
it  will  be  found  difficult  certainly,  nay  impossible  probably,  to  rec 
oncile  them  with  the  assertions  of  the  President,  when  the  effect 
intended  to  be  produced  by  these  assertions  is  remembered.  The 
object  in  view  in  making  these  assertions  is  to  prove  thereby,  that 
by  virtue  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  wre  acknowledged 
ourselves  to  be  one  Nation.  Hence,  the  President  says  "  that  de 
cisive  and  important  step  was  taken  jointly"  Now  if  by  this  he 
means  to  say,  merely,  that  this  declaration  was  the  work  of  many 
persons  co-operating  to  produce  it,  no  matter  in  what  character 
they  acted,  he  asserts  a  fact  so  unimportant  to  his  purpose,  and  so 
familiar  to  every  one,  that  it  really  seems  almost  ludicrous  to  ut 
ter  it  with  such  apparent  gravity,  if  indeed  it  was  necessary  to 
state  it  at  all. 

But  if  he  means  to  be  understood,  as  asserting  that  this  declara- 


PKOCLAMATION    OF   PEESIDENT   JACKSON.  33 

tion  was  the  joint  act  of  the  representatives  of  any  single  body, 
previously  known  as  a  Community  or  Nation,  besides  the  histori 
cal  error  committed,  he  states  what  must  be  unintelligible  to  all, 
except  to  those  who  can  comprehend  how  any  single  body  can  do 
any  joint  act. 

I  should  have  been  disposed  to  consider  this  sentence  a:;  a  mere 
inaccuracy,  caused  by  the  precipitate  haste  in  which  this  State 
paper  was  probably  prepared,  and  therefore,  to  have  passed  it  by 
unnoticed,  but  that  it  is  in  exact  keeping  with  all  the  previous 
parts  of  this  argument,  and  moreover,  is  in  substance  repeated 
more  impressively,  in  the  next  sentence,  wherein  it  is  said,  that 
"  we  declared  ourselves  a  Nation  by  a  joint,  not  by  several  acts." 
Now,  if  we  were  a  Nation  before  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence  was  uttered,  (as  it  was  the  purpose  of  all  the  previous  parts 
of  this  argument  to  prove,)  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  us 
as  a  Nation,  to  proclaim  this  fact  by  any  joint  act :  and  if  before 
that  event  occurred,  we  were  not  a  Nation,  but  separate  commu 
nities  or  individuals,  it  seems  difficult  to  conceive  how  we 
(whether  the  Colonies  or  Colonists)  could  have  declared  ourselves 
as  a  Nation,  by  any  other  than  several  acts. 

The  reason  of  all  this  mystification  and  apparent  absurdity,  will 
be  obvious,  when  we  come  to  consider  the  declarations  actually 
made  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  itself.  We  shall  then 
iind,  that  this  instrument,  instead  of  proclaiming  the  Colonies  to 
be  one  Nation,  declared  the:ii  to  be  ufree  and  independent 
States,"  in  terms.  Hence,  as  it  was  impossible  to  infer  the  exist 
ence  of  one  nation  from  such  terms,  in  which  this  idea  is  so  plain 
ly  and  positively  negatived,  resort  was  had  to  the  manner  in 
which  this  declaration  was  made;  and  we  are  told,  "that  decisive 
and  important  step  was  taken  jointly,"  and  that  "we  declared 
ourselves  a  Nation  by  a  joint,  not  by  several  acts  " — as  if  the 
plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  act  itself,  could  be  changed  by 
any  such  extrinsic  circumstances. 

I  have  now  done  with  this  part  of  the  argument  of  the  Presi 
dent,  the  design  of  which  is  to  show,  that  these  States  never  were 
sovereign,  in  showing  that  they  constituted  but  parts  of  another 
sovereignty  called  the  Nation. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  give  my  account  of  the  Declaration  of 
3 


34  A   EEVIEW   OF  THE 

Independence  ;  and  therein  to  state  ray  ideas  of  its  effects  upon 
the  several  Colonies,  who,  by  their  representatives,  were  parties 
to  that  instrument. 

The  true  nature  and  intended  effects  of  the  Declaration,  can 
never  be  understood,  from  a  consideration  of  the  manner  in  which 
it  was  executed,  merely. 

Whether  it  was  produced  by  the  agency  of  one,  only,  or  by  the 
joint  agency  of  many,  or  by  the  several  agencies  of  different  per 
sons  co-operating  to  the  same  end,  is  of  little  consequence.  Its 
object  and  intended  effects  must  be  inferred  from  its  language, 
although  if  that  is  ambiguous,  these  may  very  properly  be  sought 
for  in  extraneous  circumstances  of  any  kind,  whether  these  cir 
cumstances  are  found  in  the  manner  of  the  execution  of  the  in 
strument,  or  in  anything  else. 

Let  us  then,  turn  to  the  act  itself,  and  judge  from  its  contents, 
of  its  end  and  object,  before  we  attempt  to  discover  these  last  in 
any  other  way. 

When  so  examined,  the  Declaration  of  Independence  seems  to 
be  a  manifesto,  addressed  to  the  world,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  civil 
ized  world,  designed  to  inform  it  of  the  pre-existence  of  a  new 
event  interesting  to  humanity,  and  of  the  causes  and  circum 
stances  which  had  occasioned  the  occurrence  of  this  new  fact. 
Like  the  manifesto  that  generally  accompanies  or  immediately 
follows  every  modern  Declaration  of  War,  which,  in  announcing 
the  new  relations  of  the  belligerents,  and  narrating  how  these 
have  been  produced,  it  so  contains  an  implied  appeal  to  other 
States,  and  to  posterity,  for  the  justification  of  those  by  whom 
this  new  state  of  things  has  been  made  necessary.  Considered  in 
this  light,  it  asserts  nothing  but  what  had  previously  existed,  al 
though  but  recently ;  and  its  object  is  confined  to  the  justification 
of  that  pre-existing  state  of  things  which  it  so  announces.  If  this 
was  its  purpose,  it  cannot  be  considered  as  creating  any  new  com 
munity,  as  ordaining  any  new  government,  or  bestowing  any  new 
name  ;  but  as  intended  merely  to  announce  the  new  condition  in 
which  former  societies,  under  existing  governments  and  names 
previously  known,  are  placed.  Its  sole  end,  is  to  justify  to  others 
that  new  condition  which  has  been  recently  assumed  by  those 
who  utter  the  manifesto. 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  35 

Whether  this  notion  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  be 
correct,  must  depend,  mainly,  upon  its  own  language.  Let  me, 
then,  examine  what  this  is. 

It  commences  by  saying,  that  "  when,  in  the  course  of  human 
events,  it  becomes  necessary  for  one  people  to  dissolve  the  politi 
cal  bands  which  have  connected  them  with  another,  and  to  as 
sume,  among  the  powers  of  the  earth,  the  separate  and  equal  sta 
tion  to  which  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  nature's  God  entitle  them, 
a  decent  respect  to  the  opinions  of  mankind  requires,  that  they 
should  declare  the  causes  which  impel  them  to  the  separation." 
Here,  then,  confessedly,  is  an  appeal  to  mankind,  induced  by  the 
decent  respect  due  to  their  opinions,  designed  to  inform  them  of 
the  fact  of  the  dissolution  of  the  political  bands  which  had  previ 
ously  connected  those  making  this  appeal,  with  some  other  com 
munity.  Immediately  following  this  introduction,  comes  the  in 
tended  justification  of  this  act. 

Tin's  consists  of  tAro  parts :  the  assertion  of  certain  general 
propositions,  which  the  authors  of  this  manifesto  or  appeal  held 
to  be  self-evident,  requiring  no  proof  to  establish  them  ;  and  the 
application  of  these  general  and  self-evident  truths  to  the  partic 
ular  notorious  historical  facts  existing  in  their  case,  which  facts 
are  concisely  narrated.  The  general  truths  here  announced,  are 
those  proclaimed  in  the  Declaration  of  Rights  previously  promul 
gated  in  Virginia,  some  of  which  I  have  stated  in  a  former  num 
ber.  They  are,  in  brief,  these : 

That  all  men  are  created  equal ;  and  are  endowed  by  their 
Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights ;  among  which  are  the 
rights  to  life,  to  liberty,  and  to  the  pursuit  of  their  happiness. 
That  to  secure  these  inalienable  rights,  governments  are  instituted 
among  men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the 
governed. — That  whenever  any  form  of  government  becomes  de 
structive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  to 
abolish  it,  and  to  institute  new  government,  laying  its  foundations 
on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to 
them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness. 
— That,  although  these  things  are  true,  yet  prudence  dictates,  that 
governments  long  established  should  not  be  changed  for  light  and 
transient  causes ;  and  accordingly,  all  experience  hath  shewn,  that 


36  A   REVIEW   OF  THE 

mankind  are  more  disposed  to  suffer  while  evils  are  sufferable, 
than  to  right  themselves  by  abolishing  the  forms  to  which  they 
are  accustomed. — But  when  a  long  train  of  abuses  and  usurpations, 
pursuing  invariably  the  same  object,  evinces  a  design  to  reduce 
them  under  absolute  despotism,  it  is  their  right,  it  is  their  duty, 
to  throw  off  such  government,  and  to  provide  new  guards  for 
their  future  security. 

Having  thus  shewn  the  clear  right  and  solemn  duty  to  do  the 
act,  the  performance  of  which  they  had  announced,  namely,  the 
dissolution  of  the  political  bands  that  had  formerly  connected  the 
authors  of  this  manifesto,  and  their  respective  constituents,  with 
another  government ;  provided,  such  a  long  train  of  abuses  and 
usurpations  on  the  part  of  this  other  government,  as  they  had 
referred  to,  existed,  the  Declaration  next  proceeds  to  set  forth 
what  were  the  abuses  and  usurpations,  the  previous  occurrence  of 
which  would  give  point  and  special  application  to  their  asserted 
self-evident  truths,  and  so  justify  that  act. 

The  catalogue  of  these  abuses  and  usurpations  need  not  be  re 
peated  here. 

All  men  must  admit,  that  if  the  facts  stated  therein  were  true, 
as  stated,  and  if  the  general  propositions  affirmed  were  correct  as 
affirmed,  they  made  together  a  perfect  demonstration  of  that 
which  they  were  intended  to  establish,  that  is  to  say,  of  the  right 
to  throw  off  the  government  of  Great  Britain,  by  which  govern 
ment  these  abuses  and  usurpations  had  been  practised.  But  not 
content  with  this  clear  demonstration  of  a  strict  right,  the  authors 
of  the  Declaration  go  on  to  state  further : 

That  in  every  stage  of  these  oppressions,  they  had  petitioned 
for  redress  in  the  most  humble  terms  ;  but  that  their  repeated  pe 
titions  had  been  answered  only  by  repeated  injuries.  That  they 
had  also  appealed  to  the  native  justice  and  magnanimity  of  their 
British  brethren,  conjuring  them,  by  the  ties  of  common  kindred, 
to  disavow  these  usurpations,  which  would  inevitably  interrupt 
their  connexions  and  correspondence  ;  but  that  they,  too,  had  been 
deaf  to  the  voice  of  justice  and  of  consanguinity — Wherefore,  they 
were  bound  to  acquiesce  in  the  necessity  which  denounced  their 
separation,  and  to  hold  them,  as  they  held  the  rest  of  mankind, 
enemies  in  war,  in  peace  friends. 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  37 

For  all  these  reasons,  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  in  general  Congress  Assembled,  appealing  to  the  Supreme 
Judge  of  the  World  for  the  rectitude  of  their  intentions,  did,  in 
the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  good  people  of  these  Colo 
nies,  their  respective  Constituents,  solemnly  publish  and  declare, 
that  these  United  Colonies,  were,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  Free 
and  Independent  States — That  they  were  absolved  from  all  alle 
giance  to  the  British  Crown  ;  and  that  all  political  connexion  be 
tween  them  and  the  State  of  Great  Britain,  was,  and  ought  to  be, 
totally  dissolved — And  that  as  Free  and  Independent  States, 
they  had  full  power  to  levy  war,  conclude  peace,  contract  alli 
ances,  establish  commerce,  and  to  do  all  other  acts  and  things 
which  independent  States  might  of  right  do. 

This  is  a  full  and  faithful  abstract,  of  everything  contained  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  any  man  can  consider  as 
important  or  applicable  to  the  question  now  under  examination. 
For  the  truth  of  this  assertion,  I  refer  to  the  Declaration  itself, 
happily,  now  in  the  hands  of  almost  every  freeman  in  this  coun 
try —  I  appeal  then,  confidently,  to  every  candid  mind,  to  deter 
mine,  whether  there  is  one  word  uttered,  or  one  thought  ex 
pressed,  or  even  implied,  throughout  the  whole  of  this  important, 
clear  arid  able  State  paper,  to  countenance  the  idea,  that  it  could 
have  been  designed  by  its  Authors,  to  incorporate  the  Several 
Communities  therein  for  the  First  time  Styled  the  United  States 
of  America,  into  one  Nation  ?  Whether  it  does  not  affirm, 
in  terms,  that  the  Colonies  represented  in  the  Congress  which 
produced  this  act,  were,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  Free  and  Inde- 
dependent  States — And  whether  it  could  have  had  any  other 
end  or  aim  than  what  I  have  stated,  that  is  to  say,  to  declare  and 
make  manifest  to  the  world,  what  was  the  condition  of  these 
States ;  and  in  tracing  the  causes  which  had  produced  this  condi 
tion,  to  justify  before  the  world  the  position  they  had  already  as 
sumed. 

I  ask  of  the  Constitutional  Lawyer,  to  tell  me,  whether  any  act, 
professing  as  this  does,  to  be  declaratory  of  what  is,  and  of  right 
ought  to  be,  can  properly  be  considered  as  an  instrument  ordain 
ing  the  existence  of  that  which  it  declares,  merely. — I  ask  of  any 
Politician,  even  of  the  new  school,  to  tell  me,  in  frankness, 


38  A    REVIEW   OF   THE 

whether,  at  that  time,  the  delegates  of  any  Colony,  assembled  in 
a  general  Congress,  could  have  had  any  authority  to  extinguish 
the  rights  of  their  Constituents,  by  amalgamating  them  with 
y'others,  into  one  Nation,  except  under  their  credentials  and  in 
structions. — Should  he  say,  as  speaking  in  that  spirit,  he  must  say, 
that  they  could  not  have  had  authority  derived  from  any  other 
source,  I  then  refer  to  these  credentials  and  instructions,  to  shew, 
that  all  of  them  contained  expressed  limitations  upon  the  power 
of  these  delegates,  by  which  they  were  prohibited  from  doing  any 
such  act. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  recite  all  these  papers ;  a  part  of  one  only 
will  suffice.  The  Provincial  Congress  of  New  Jersey,  assembled 
at  Burlington,  on  the  21st  of  June,  1776,  empowered  their  dele 
gates,  to  join  with  the  delegates  of  the  other  Colonies,  "in  declar 
ing  the  United  Colonies  independent  of  Great  Britain,  entering  into 
a  confederation  for  union  and  common  defence,  making  Treaties 
with  foreign  nations  for  commerce  and  assistance,  and  to  take 
such  other  measures  as  might  appear  to  them  and  you  necessary 
for  these  great  ends ;  always  observing  that  whatever  plan  of 
Confederacy  you  enter  into,  the  regulating  the  internal  police  of 
this  province,  is  to  be  reserved  to  the  Colony  Legislature."  * 
Words  containing  a  more  explicit  prohibition,  against  welding 
New  Jersey  with  the  other  Colonies,  or  any  of  them,  into  one 
Nation,  could  not  well  have  been  employed ;  and  yet  the  author 
ity  communicated  to  the  delegates  of  New  Jersey,  by  these  in 
structions,  was  even  greater  than  that  possessed  by  the  Repre 
sentatives  of  many  of  the  other  Colonies.  If  the  nature  and  in 
tent  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  are  such,  as  I  have 
stated ;  it  is  of  little  consequence  to  inquire,  whether  that  deci 
sive  and  important  step  was  taken  by  its  authors,  jointly  or  sever 
ally  ;  or  whether  it  deserves  the  name  of  a  joint  act,  or  of  several 
acts ;  for  let  the  act  be  done  as  it  may,  it  was  certainly  done  for  the 
purposes  it  announces,  and  could  not  have  been  done  for  any 
such  purpose  as  the  President  ascribes  to  it,  namely,  to  declare 
the  Colonies  one  Nation,  or  the  Colonists  one  People. 

In  further  proof  of  this,  I  will  here  remark,  that  during  the  very 

*  See  Journals  of  the  Old  Congress,  Vol.  2,  pp.  224,  225. 


PKOCLAMATION   OF   PKESIDENT   JACKSON.  39 

time  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  under  consideration, 
to  wit,  on  the  llth  June,  1776,  Congress  began  to  take  the  neces 
sary  measures  for  preparing  "  the  form  of  a  confederation  to  be  en 
tered  into  between  these  Colonies,"  *  which  measure  was  perfected 
long  after  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  uttered. 

This  of  itself  contradicts  the  assertion,  that  we  were  then  one 
Nation  or  one  People.  But  I  will  postpone  to  another  number, 
any  remarks  upon  this  second  great  act  of  our  political  history ; 
and  will  conclude  the  present,  by  saying,  that  it  results  from  all 
which  has  been  stated,  that  the  Sovereignty  assumed  by  the  sev 
eral  States,  in  the  manner  I  have  before  shewn,  so  far  from  being 
annulled,  was  confirmed  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
which  had  no  other  object  than  to  declare  their  Independence, 
and  to  demonstrate  to  the  world,  that  this  independence  was 
their's  of  right. 

*  See  Journals  of  the  Old  Congress,  Vol.  2,  page  297. 


40  A  REVIEW   OF  THE 


V. 


NORFOLK,  January  9,  1833. 


IN  my  preceding  numbers  I  have  attempted,  and  as  I  hope, 
attempted  successfully,  to  shew,  that  at  the  very  commencement 
of  the  Revolution,  the  several  revolted  Colonies  assumed  upon 
themselves  respectively,  to  be  Free,  Sovereign  and  Independ 
ent  States  ;  that  this  their  original  Sovereignty,  so  far  from  being 
annulled,  was  but  confirmed  by  the  subsequent  Declaration  of 
Independence,  which  had  no  other  objects,  than  to  declare  this 
their  new  condition  to  the  world,  and  to  justify  that  which  it  so 
declared.  In  the  pursuit  of  my  original  plan,  I  am  brought  to 
inquire  now,  whether  this  Sovereignty  of  the  several  States,  con 
firmed  as  it  was  by  the  first  great  act  recorded  in  our  Political 
history,  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  was  afterwards  abro 
gated,  by  the  second  act  of  this  sort,  the  Articles  of  Confedera 
tion.  I  could  much  abbreviate  the  labour  of  this  examination, 
probably,  by  at  once  opening  the  latter  instrument  and  reciting  its 
contents.  But  as  my  attention  has  been  called  to  this  subject,  by 
the  very  extraordinary  and  new  doctrines  put  forth  in  the  Procla 
mation  of  the  President,  which  doctrines  I  have  undertaken  to 
review,  I  shall  continue  to  pursue  the  course  I  have  already 
adopted  ;  therefore,  before  I  examine  the  Articles  of  Confedera 
tion  themselves,  I  will  endeavor  to  clear  away  all  the  brushwood 
growing  out  of  the  arguments  and  narratives  of  this  Proclama 
tion,  which  I  think  calculated  to  conceal  the  objects  of  this  com 
pact,  or  to  render  them  obscure. 

The  Proclamation  says,  "  when  the  terms  of  our  Confederation 
were  reduced  to  form,  it  was  in  that  of  a  solemn  league  of  several 
States,  by  which  they  agreed,  that  they  would,  collectively,  form 
one  nation,  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  some  certain  domestic 
concerns,  and  all  foreign  relations/' 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  41 

This  passage  is  in  the  same  paragraph  with,  and  follows  imme 
diately  after  that,  which  I  have  formerly  quoted  and  commented 
upon.  Nay,  it  is  actually  connected  with  it  by  the  copulative  con 
junction  "  and,"  being  separated  from  the  former  by  a  semi-colon 
only.  The  leading  object  of  the  first  part  of  the  paragraph,  as  I 
have  already  shewn,  was  to  prove,  that  before  the  Declaration  ol 
Independence,  the  People  of  all  the  revolted  Colonies,  had  formed 
themselves  into  one  nation,  and  had  proclaimed  the  existence  of 
this  nation  in  that  instrument,  which  was  said  to  have  been  a 
joint  act,  executed  by  the  parties  jointly,  and  not  the  act  of  these t 
parties  severally.  Scarcely  did  this  first  nation  make  its  appear 
ance,  than  as  if  touched  by  the  wand  of  a  magician,  it  suddenly 
disappears,  and  in  its  stead,  we  have  this  new  nation,  not  formed 
by  the  People,  but  by  a  solemn  league  of  the  several  States,  who 
by  this  league  agreed,  that  they  would,  collectively,  form  one 
nation,  for  some  purposes.  The  objects  to  be  attained  by  the 
creation  of  the  first  nation,  and  the  Authorities  with  which  it 
was  clothed  to  attain  these  objects,  were  not  stated  in  the  narra 
tive  of  its  birth,  nevertheless  it  was  an  august  body,  the  greatest 
of  all  human  creations,  a  Nation  constituted  by  the  free  will  of 
its  own  People  ;  and  it  belongs  not  to  mortal  man,  to  define 
either  the  objects  or  legitimate  authorities  of  such  a  moral  being. 

But  when  this  second  nation  is  introduced,  it  is  seen  at  once  as 
a  rickety  monster,  as  an  accountable  being  without  free  will,  as  a 
Sovereign  without  supremacy,  as  the  pigmy  creature  of  creators 
puny  as  itself ;  in  a  word,  as  a  nation  created  for  certain  purposes 
only ! 

I  wish  the  President  had  extended  his  argumentative  narra 
tion  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  first  Nation,  and  given  at  least 
a  sketch  of  its  decline  and  fall.  I  feel  great  interest  in  the  fate 
of  all  nations,  because,  I  believe  that  the  light  of  not  one  of  these 
Stars  in  the  Constellation  of  human  Society  can  be  extinguished, 
except  under  direful  and  portentous  circumstances,  betokening 
the  destruction  of  the  whole  galaxy. 

Therefore,  I  sympathize  very  sincerely  with  the  unhappy 
Greek,  with  the  suffering  and  gallant  Pole,  and  already  feel  anxi 
ety  for  the  fate  of  the  industrious,  frugal,  honest,  and  brave 
Dutch.  But  when  I  am  told  of  the  existence  of  a  Nation  in  this 


42  A   EEVIEW   OF   THE 

"  my  own,  my  native  land,"  and  that  it  was  created  by  the  only 
human  authors  who  I  acknowledge  as  having  legitimate  authority 
to  create  a  Nation,  its  own  People,  quorum  pars  fui,  I  cannot 
but  feel  intense  interest  as  to  its  fate.  Did  its  authors  become 
convinced,  like  some  Philosophers  of  the  olden  time,  that  a  Peo 
ple  occupying  a  territory  of  vast  extent,  could  not  long  exist  in 
freedom,  and  in  peace,  as  one  Nation  ;  because,  unfeeling  and  in 
terested  majorities,  would  more  probably  oppress  minorities,  than 
any  single  despot;  and  therefore,  sacrificing  their  ideas  of  splen 
did  grandeur,  to  their  love  of  liberty,  destroy  the  work  of  their 
own  hands,  leaving  no  memorial  to  tell  even  that  "  Lyons  was"; 
or  did  this  new  monster  nation,  raise  its  parricidal  hand  against 
the  prior  work  of  the  authors  of  its  own  being,  and  bring  it  to  an 
untimely  end,  to  gratify  its  own  lusts?  If  "  History  is  Philoso 
phy  teaching  by  example,"  the  narrative  of  the  downfall  of  this 
first  nation  would  doubtless  furnish  some  useful  lessons  to  states 
men  of  other  times. 

But  it  is  lost,  "  and  like  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision,  has  left 
not  a  wreck  behind." 

Then,  let  us  not  deplore  its  unknown  fate,  but  tarn  our  atten 
tion  to  its  successor. 

The  difference  between  the  author  of  this  Proclamation  and 
myself,  is  radical  and  irreconcilable.  He  contends,  that  the  in 
habitants  of  these  now  United  States  are  "  one  People."  To 
prove  this  he  asserts,  that  before  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence,  they  had  formed  themselves  into  "  a  nation  "  the  existence 
of  which  was  proclaimed  in  that  act ;  and  that  afterwards,  when  the 
terms  of  this  their  first  association  (called  now  a  confederation) 
"  were  reduced  to  form,'  it  was  in  that  of  a  solemn  league  of  sev 
eral  States,  by  which  they  agreed,  that  they  would  collectively 
form  one  nation,"  for  certain  purposes  which  he  expresses.  On 
the  other  hand,  I  have  contended,  that  these  inhabitants  are  not 
now,  nor  ever  were,  one  People,  but  always  constituted  several 
separate  and  distinct  communities,  which  even  in  their  colonial 
state,  had  long  existed  as  such,  and  independent  of  each  other.— 
That  before  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  these  communities, 
impelled  by  a  sense  of  common  interest,  and  of  common  danger, 
associated  themselves,  not  to  form  one  nation,  but  by  the  agency 


PROCLAMATION   OF  PKESIDENT   JACKSON.  43 

of  certain  delegates  selected  by  them  respectively,  to  consult  to 
gether,  and  to  recommend  to  each  other,  the  adoption  of  such 
plans,  as  might  be  thought  to  conduce  most  to  the  advancement 
of  this  common  interest,  and  to  security  against  this  common  dan 
ger. — That  afterwards,  accidental  circumstances,  beyond  the  con 
trol  of  these  several  communities,  having  deprived  them  of  all 
regular  government,  they  were  severally  constrained  by  the  force 
of  these  circumstances,  to  form  a  new  government,  each  for  it 
self;  and  so  to  assume  Sovereignty. — That  in  this  situation,  a  de 
cent  respect  for  the  opinions  of  mankind,  induced  them  all  to  pro 
claim  their  new  condition,  and  to  justify  what  they  had  done; 
and  that  this  was  the  sole  cause  and  object  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  which  so  far  from  declaring  that  these  communi 
ties  were  then  "  One  Nation,"  declared  expressly,  that  they  were 
Free  and  Independent  States.  I  contend  further,  that  the  origi 
nal  association  of  these  several  distinct  and  independent  communi 
ties,  Having  for  its  objects  the  very  general  purposes  I  have  men 
tioned,  did  not  invest  the  delegates  deputed  to  represent  them  in 
the  association,  with  sufficient  authority  to  attain  its  purposes. — 
That  under  such  circumstances,  it  was  very  soon  discovered,  that 
its  objects  could  not  be  advanced,  happily ;  therefore,  it  became 
desirable,  to  give  body  and  being  to  this  association,  which,  like 
the  earth,  "in  the  beginning,  was  without  form." — That  to  re 
duce  the  association  to  form,  by  prescribing  precisely  its  intended 
objects,  and  by  bestowing  upon  it  defined  powers  to  attain  these 
pi-escribed  objects,  it  became  necessary  that  the  original  parties 
to  the  association  should  enter  into  a  Covenant  with  each  other, 
for  these  ends ;  and  that  this  Covenant  is  to  be  found  in  the  Arti 
cles  of  Confederation. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  exposition,  that  I  concur  with  the  au 
thor  of  this  Proclamation,  when  he  says,  that  "  when  the  terms  of 
our  confederation  were  reduced  to  form,  it  was  in  that  of  a  solemn 
league  of  several  States,"  except,  that  in  order  to  make  it  accu 
rate,  I  desire  to  amend  this  expression,  by  substituting  association 
for  confederation.  Previously  to  the  formation  of  this  solemn 
league,  the  States  were  united  by  the  vague  and  uncertain  ties  of 
a  common  interest  and  a  common  peril  only.  But  in  what  this 
common  interest  consisted,  or  what  this  common  danger  might 


44  A   REVIEW   OF   THE 

require,  neither  was  or  could  be  defined ;  and  therefore,  the  con 
nection  to  promote  these  general  ends,  being  necessarily  as  in 
definite  as  were  its  objects,  their  association  was  an  Union,  merely. 
It  was  this  solemn  league  alone,  which  converted  this  general, 
simple  and  undefined  association,  into  a  particular  confederation. 
— And  here,  I  must  remark,  that  although  the  author  of  this 
Proclamation,  had  announced  in  the  former  part  of  this  very  sen 
tence,  that  we  had  proclaimed  ourselves  a  Nation  in  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  yet  when  he  comes  now  to  give  the  charac 
ter  of  this  Nation,  it  turns  out,  and  by  his  own  acknowledgment 
too,  to  have  been  nothing  more  than  a  Confederacy.  No  man  be 
fore  this  author,  has  ever  considered  these  terms  as  convertible : 
but  the  new  theory,  which  denies  that  these  States  ever  were  sov 
ereigns,  can  only  be  maintained  by  such  a  perversion  of  the  well- 
settled  meanings  of  words. 

The  qnaintness  and  metaphysical  formula,  in  which  this  annun 
ciation  is  made,  is  well  worthy  of  a  passing  remark.  The  Procla 
mation  says,  that  "  when  the  terms  of  our  Confederation  were  re 
duced  to  form,  it  (that  is  to  say  the  form)  was  in  that  of  a  solemn 
league."  From  this  some  casuist  might  infer,  that  the  purpose  of 
this  statement,  was  to  affirm,  that  in  substance  we  had  been  a  Na 
tion  before,  but  when  the  terms  of  the  existence  of  this  Nation 
were  reduced  to  form,  this  form  was  that  of  a  solemn  league ;  so 
that  we  still  remained  a  Nation  in  fact,  although  but  a  Confeder 
acy  in  form.  As  the  author  of  this  Proclamation  however  disdains 
to  employ  "metaphysical  subtlety  in  pursuit  of  an  impracticable 
theory,"  he  surely  could  not  have  intended  to  draw  himself,  or  to 
use  any  language  which  might  justify  another  in  drawing,  that 
most  subtle  of  all  metaphysical  distinctions,  which  seeks  to  distin 
guish  the  substance  from  the  form  under  which  it  exists. 

The  new  school  of  politicians  must  not,  therefore,  seek  to  de 
rive  any  support  for  their  doctrines,  from  this  formula.  Yet  un 
less  some  such  casuistry  is  employed,  unless  some  distinction  is 
taken  between  a  nation  and  the  form  of  its  existence,  it  is  impossi 
ble  to  conceive  how  by  a  solemn  league  of  several  States,  said  to 
have  been  intended  to  form  their  Confederation,  they  could  have 
agreed,  that  they  would,  collectively  form  one  Nation. 

The  idea  too  of  a  Nation  formed  for  certain  purposes  only,  con- 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  45 

sisting  of  the  same  people  who  had  previously  formed  themselves 
into  a  Nation  for  other  purposes,  and  of  the  co-existence  of  these 
two  Nations,  is  a  conception,  which  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  truly 
worthy  of  the  best  scholar  in  the  new  French  school  of  Eclecti 
cism.  1  can  conceive  of  one  Nation,  having  two  or  twenty  gov 
ernments,  designed  for  as  many  different  purposes,  and  all  held  in 
due  and  orderly  subjection,  within  their  established  spheres,  by 
the  will  of  the  Nation  which  created  and  preserved  them  ;  but  I 
freely  confess,  that  the  idea  of  one  People  divided  into  two  Na 
tions,  surpasses  my  humble  comprehension. 

All  this,  however,  is  of  little  consequence,  I  admit,  if  the  fact 
be  as  the  President  affirms  it,  that  by  their  solemn  league  of  Con 
federation,  the  several  States  who  formed  it,  "  agreed  that  they 
would  form  one  Nation,"  whether  collectively,  or  in  any  other 
way,  whether  for  the  purposes  mentioned  in  the  Proclamation,  or 
for  any  other  purpose  whatever,  is  of  no  moment. 

This  fact  can  only  be  learned  from  the  terms  of  the  league  it 
self,  for  fortunately,  we  are  not  to  be  again  perplexed  with  any 
enquiry -as  to  the  character  of  the  parties  to  this  league,  or  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  it  was  executed.  It  is  conceded  that  the 
parties  were  several  bodies  politic  called  States,  who  not  only  did, 
but  of  necessity  must,  have  entered  into  it,  each  for  itself  alone. 

Let  us  now,  then,  examine  this  league. 

The  Articles  of  Confederation  constitute  an  act  so  long,  con 
taining  such  a  number  of  various  provisions  unconnected  with 
each  other,  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  make  any  abstract  of  its 
contents,  of  such  brevity  as  would  suit  this  occasion.  Nor  is  this 
necessary  for  my  present  purpose,  which  is  merely  to  ascertain, 
whether  it  was  the  object  of  this  instrument,  to  divest  the  States 
of  their  original  sovereign  character. 

A  reference  to  some  few  of  these  articles  only,  will  furnish  mat 
ter  so  conclusive  upon  this  point,  that  it  would  be  useless  to  press 
the  examination  further,  to  prove,  that  the  President  mistakes  the 
object  and  character  of  this  instrument  as  much,  as  I  have  already 
shewn,  as  he  mistook  the  purpose  and  character  of  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence. 

The  Act  of  Confederation  was  agreed  to  by  the  Delegates  of 
the  several  States  assembled  in  a  general  Congress,  on  the  15th 


46  A   KEVIEW   OF   THE 

of  November,  1777,  but,  as  these  Delegates  had  no  authority  to 
bind  their  respective  Constituents  in  this  mode,  Congress  directed 
that  the  Articles  should  be  submitted  to  the  Legislatures  of  the 
different  States,  and  if  approved  by  them,  they  were  advised,  to 
authorize  their  delegates  in  Congress,  to  ratify  the  same,  which, 
being  done,  the  Compact  should  become  conclusive.  On  the  9th 
of  July,  1778,  this  act  was  actually  ratified  by  eight  States,  in  the 
mode  suggested.  They  being  a  majority  of  the  States,  and  Con 
gress  having  information,  although  not  such  as  was  regarded  as 
official,  that  many  of  the  other  States  had  ratified,  or  would  agree 
to  ratify  it,  in  the  mode  pointed  out,  and  being  urged  to  do  so  by 
the  necessities  of  the  country,  promulgated  it  on  that  day. 

The  delegates  of  North  Carolina  and  of  Georgia  \vere  not  pres 
ent  in  Congress,  when  this  promulgation  was  made,  but  arriving 
soon  after,  those  of  North  Carolina  ratified  the  act  in  behalf  of 
that  State,  on  the  21st  of  July,  1778,  and  those  of  Georgia  three 
days  afterwards,  on  the  24th  of  the  same  month. 

The  ratification  on  the  part  of  New  Jersey,  did  not  take  place 
until  the  20th  of  the  following  November.  Delaware  .did  not, 
ratify  until  February,  1779  ;  and  Maryland  refused  to  ratify  until 
1781. — Her  ratification  completed  the  act;  and  on  the  2d  of 
March,  1781,  Congress  assembled  under  the  new  powers  conferred 
upon  it  by  this  instrument.  These  facts  of  themselves  are  deci 
sive  to  prove,  that  the  Articles  of  Confederation  were  not  designed 
to  affect,  in  any  way,  the  Sovereignty  of  the  States,  for  otherwise, 
between  July,  1778,  and  February,  1781,  the  Union  would  have 
been  composed  of  parties  connected  by  different  bonds,  and  the 
Confederation  (if  it  was  such),  would  have  been  formed  by  States 
possessing  different  degrees  of  Sovereignty. 

Both  of  which  suppositions  would  be  manifestly  absurd. 

But  this  matter  shall  not  be  permitted  to  rest  upon  inference 
merely,  although  that  is  a  necessary  inference,  and  is  derived  from 
the  very  strong  facts  which  I  have  stated. 

I  will  prove  it  incontestably,  by  the  language  of  the  Articles 
of  Confederation  themselves. — In  the  Caption  of  this  act,  it  is  en 
titled  "  Articles  of  Confederation  and  perpetual  union  between 
the  States  of  New  Hampshire,"  etc.,  etc.,  naming  each  of  the 
States. — The  first  of  these  Articles  declares,  that  "  the  style  (not 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  47 

the  name)  of  this  Confederacy  shall  be,  The  United  States  of 
America." — The  second  Article  is  in  these  words,  "Each  State 
retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence,  and  every 
power,  jurisdiction,  and  right,  which  is  not  by  this  Confederation 
expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled." 
— Xow,  until  it  can  be  shewn,  that  one  may  retain  what  he  never 
had,  this  Article  must  be  conclusive,  to  prove,  that  the  States 
were  free,  sovereign,  and  independent,  before  this  instrument 
was  agreed  upon.  Should  it  be  said,  that,  although  then  sover 
eign,  the  ratifying  States  intended  to  delegate  a  portion  of  their 
original  Sovereignty  by  this  act,  the  answer  is,  that  while  they 
thereby  avowed  an  intention  to  delegate  portions  of  their  power, 
jurisdiction,  and  right  to  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled ; 
in  this  very  sentence  they  retain  expressly  all  their  Sovereignty, 
freedom,  and  independence.  This  must  be  very  obvious,  when  it 
is  observed,  that  the  delegations  of  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right 
were  to  be  made,  not  to  the  Confederacy  styled  the  United  States 
of  America,  but  to  the  representatives  of  these  United  States  in 
Congress  assembled ;  which  body,  although  a  suitable  assignee 
of  such  subjects,  could  never  be  considered,  with  any  propriety, 
at  least,  as  fit  or  capable  to  receive  an  assignment  of  the  sover 
eignty,  freedom,  and  independence  of  the  several  States,  even  if 
it  could  be  imagined,  that  these  States  were  willing  to  transfer 
the  sacred  deposit  of  their  freedom  to  any  body  whatever. 

I  will  not  weary  the  reader  by  numerous  other  extracts  from  this 
instrument,  which  I  could  easily  make,  to  prove  the  same  thing, 
that,  by  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  the  States,  while  transfer 
ring  certain  powers  of  government  to  the  Congress  thereby  cre 
ated,  and  retaining  their  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence 
asserted  their  former  possession  of  all  these  attributes  of  a  State, 
in  declaring  that  they  would  not  part  with  them. — But  I  will  here 
close  the  present  number,  reserving  some  few  other  remarks, 
which  I  purpose  to  make  upon  that  part  of  the  Proclamation,  in 
which  the  powers  enjoyed  by  the  old  Congress  under  the  Articles 
of  Confederation,  is  treated  of,  and,  as  I  think,  misrepresented. 


48  A   REVIEW   OF  THE 


VI. 

NORFOLK,  January  12,  1833. 

ALTHOUGH  in  my  Jast  number,  I  have  established  beyond  all 
doubt,  as  I  think,  that  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  so  far  from 
being  intended  to  amalgamate  the  People  of  the  several  States 
into  one  Nation,  were  designed  to  form  them  into  a  Confederacy, 
in  which  each  State  retained  expressly  its  own  sovereignty,  free 
dom  and  independence,  yet  there  are  certain  remarks  made  in 
the  Proclamation,  as  to  the  character  of  the  Confederacy  thereby 
created,  which  must  not  be  passed  unnoticed.  I  propose  in  this 
number,  therefore,  briefly  to  examine  these  remarks,  before  I 
prosecute  my  enquiries  further. 

It  is  so  fashionable  now,  amongst  those  who  adopt  the  new  the 
ory,  to  depreciate  the  old  confederation,  in  order  to  infer  from  its 
supposed  defects,  the  existence  of  sufficient  power  in  the  present 
government  of  the  United  States,  to  prevent  their  possible  recur 
rence,  that  I  am  not  astonished  at  any  neophyte  to  the  new  faith, 
who  follows  former  examples  of  this  kind. 

But  when  such  things  appear  in  a  State  paper,  intended  for  the 
instruction  of  the  People  in  their  political  history,  and  to  deduce 
from  thence  their  present  political  condition,  I  must  confess,  that 
I  expected  much  more  of  accuracy  in  such  statements,  than  I 
have  yet  found  in  this  Proclamation. 

The  statements  in  themselves,  are  of  little  consequence  at  the 
present  day,  except  as  they  manifest  a  disposition,  to  exhibit  unj 
der  false  lights,  facts  and  truths,  which  are  supposed  to  have  some 
bearing  upon  the  new  doctrines.  So  considered,  they  are  worthy 
of  notice.  For  this  reason,  I  have  already  noticed  many  such  as 
sertions;  and  as  my  sole  object  is  Truth,  I  will  now  proceed  to 
point  out  others.  The  author  of  this  Proclamation  says,  u  But 
the  defects  of  the  Confederation  need  not  be  detailed.  Under  its 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  49 

operation,  we  could  scarcely  be  called  a  Nation.  We  bad  neither 
prosperity  at  home,  nor  consideration  abroad."  Yet  it  was  under 
the  operation  of  the  Confederation  alone,  that  the  People  of  the 
United  States  gloriously  achieved  their  independence,  after  a  long 
and  bloody  war,  compared  with  which,  all  subsequent  wars  have 
been  but  as  the  pastimes  of  children.  It  was  under  the  operation 
of  this  Confederation  alone,  that  Treaties  of  Alliance,  of  Amity  and 
Commerce,  and  of  Peace,  were  contracted  with  many  of  the  princi 
pal  Powers  of  the  World,  with  France,  with  the  United  Netherlands, 
with  Sweden,  with  Prussia,  with  Great  Britain,  and  with  Morocco, 
which  Treaties  have  served  as  the  model  of  every  other  of  the 
like  kind  that  has  since  been  concluded.  But  the  conquest  of 
Freedom  and  Independence  at  home,  and  the  conclusion  of  such 
leagues  with  some  of  the  most  powerful  nations  upon  the  face  of 
the  earth,  in  the  eye  of  this  author,  seem  to  prove  only,  that  we 
had  neither  prosperity  at  home,  nor  consideration  abroad.  Let  us 
not  rob  the  dead,  in  order  to  deck  the  living.  The  old  Confeder 
ation  was  the  wisest  system  of  that  sort,  which  the  wisdom  of 
mankind  had  ever  produced ;  and  but  fora  single  circumstance, 
ascribable  rather  to  the  poverty  of  the  people  than  to  any  defect  in 
the  system  itself,  it  would  probably  have  endured  to  the  present 
day,  a  proud  monument  of  the  sagacity  of  its  authors.  Let  those 
who  prefer  grandeur  to  liberty,  decry  it  as  they  may,  their  ob 
jections  apply  equally  to  all  Confederacies,  and  strike  at  the 
root  of  free  government,  wherever  it  may  perchance  spring  up  in 
a  territory  of  vmich  extent. 

I  agree  with  this  author,  when  in  this  paragraph,  he  says,  that 
under  the  operation  of  this  Confederation,  "  we  could  scarcely  be 
called  a  nation."  But  I  wonder  why  the  Articles  of  Confedera 
tion  should  have  been  cited  by  him,  to  prove,  that  by  these  the 
States  had  agreed  to  form  one  Nation,  if  this  formation  scarcely 
deserved  such  a  name.  The  first  Nation,  created  by  the  People, 
the  existence  of  which,  he  said,  was  announced  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  vanished  under  the  "Presto  Begone"  of  a  ma 
gician  who  created  a  second  Nation  by  the  terms  of  this  Confed 
eration.  By  these  it  was  then  said,  that  the  States  "agreed,  that 
they  would,  collectively,  form  one  Nation,"  for  certain  purposes. 
The  first  nation,  when  its  character  was  developed  by  him,  turned 
4 


60  A   REVIEW   OF   THE 

out  to  be  no  nation  at  all,  but  was  then  admitted  by  himself,  to 
have  been  a  mere  Confederacy ;  and  no  sooner  did  he  create  a 
second  Nation  out  of  this  confederation,  to  destroy  the  first,  than 
he  now  tells  us,  that  this  second  we  can  scarcely  call  a  nation.— 
Although  consistency  is  not  ever  conclusive  evidence  of  truth,  yet 
the  want  of  consistency  has  always  been  regarded  as  an  admission 
of  error,  somewhere.  Whether  this  error  consists,  in  interring 
the  existence  of  the  first  Nation,  in  asserting  that  of  the  second,  or 
in  announcing  that  this  last  scarcely  deserved  to  be  called  a  na 
tion,  I  leave  to  him  and  others  to  determine.  At  the  moment 
when  he  is  thus  depreciating  the  old  Confederation,  this  author 
seems  much  disposed,  to  bestow  upon  it  many  and  far  greater 
powers,  than  its  warmest  friends  ever  claimed  for  it.  Thus,  he 
Bays,  that  it  was  formed  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  "  all  our 
foreign  relations."  This  is  certainly  not  so.  To  say  nothing  of 
other  subjects;  with  the  regulation  of  the  great  subject  of  foreign 
Commerce,  which,  in  modern  times,  involves  by  far  the  most  in 
teresting  of  all  the  foreign  relations  of  every  State,  the  old  Con 
federacy  had  nothing  to  do,  except  what  might  be  effected  by 
Treaties.  At  that  day,  however,  commercial  Treaties  were  rare, 
and  the  terms  upon  which  such  Treaties  might  be  concluded  by 
Congress,  were  much  restricted,  by  the  ninth  Article  of  the  Con 
federation,  so  that  the  whole  power  of  regulating  their  own  do 
mestic  Trade  and  Navigation,  and  almost  all  their  foreign  Com 
merce,  devolved  upon  the  several  States  exclusively ;  and  this 
power  was  constantly  exercised  by  them  respectively.  So  true  is 
this,  that  the  manner  in  which  this  power  was  constantly  exer 
cised  by  them,  was  one  of  the  great  causes  assigned  for  the 
amendment  of  the  old  Articles  of  Confederation  by  the  present 
Federal  Constitution. 

Nor  is  this  all.  The  Proclamation,  in  speaking  of  the  Articles 
of  Confederation,  proceeds  to  say,  that  in  that  instrument  "  is 
found  an  Article,  which  declares,  that  every  State  shall  abide  by 
the  determination  of  Congress  on  all  questions,  which  by  that 
Confederation  should  be  submitted  to  them."  And  immediately 
adds,  "under  the  Confederation,  then,  no  State  could  legally  an 
nul  a  decision  of  the  Congress,  or  refuse  to  submit  to  its  exe 
cution." 


PROCLAMATION   OF  PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  51 

Thus  a  pledge  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the  States,  to  abide  by  the 
determination  of  Congress  on  all  questions,  which  by  that  Confed 
eration  should  be  submitted  to  them,  is  supposed  to  justify  the 
author  of  this  Proclamation  in  asserting,  and  as  a  consequence 
too  of  this,  that  no  State  could  legally  refuse  to  submit  to  the  exe 
cution  of  any  of  their  decisions.  Vain  would  have  been  the  reser 
vation  made  in  the  second  Article  of  the  Confederation  "  by  the 
jealousy  of  the  States  of  all  their  power,  jurisdiction  and  right, 
which  was  not  by  that  confederation  "  expressly  delegated  to  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  if  it  was  true,  that  no  State 
could  legally  refuse  to  submit  to  the  execution  of  a  decision  of 
the  Congress,  A\7hether  such  decision  was  made  to  settle  a  question 
submitted  to  that  body,  or  not. 

But  common  sense  tells  every  one,  that  when  parties  agree  to 
submit  some  matter  to  the  arbitrament  of  another,  such  a  submis 
sion  cannot  authorize  the  arbiter  to  determine  any  thing,  which 
was  not  submitted  to  him,  or  bind  the  faith  of  the  parties  to  abide 
by  any  such  unauthorized  determination. 

The  President  himself,  has  recently  furnished  a  striking  illus 
tration  of  this  obvious  truth,  in  denying  the  obligation  of  the 
award  made  by  the  King  of  the  Netherlands,  (to  whom  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States,  by  a  compact  as  solemn  as  this  our 
league  of  Confederation,  had  submitted  the  question  concerning 
their  common  boundary,)  upon  the  simple  ground,  that  this  arbi 
ter  had  undertaken  to  determine  what  was  never  submitted  to 
him. 

If  any  one  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  the  Articles  of  Con 
federation,  he  will  h'nd  that  there  were  but  few  questions  submit 
ted  by  that  instrument  to  the  determination  of  Congress.  They 
are  all  stated  in  the  ninth  article  ;  and  are  such,  as  to  the  submis 
sion  of  which,  no  two  persons  would  or  could  disagree,  probably. 
But  should  a  question,  unfortunately,  have  arisen,  whether  any 
matter  was  submitted,  or  not,  as  the  parties  to  such  a  question, 
were  admitted  in  the  instrument  itself,  to  be  sovereign  States, 
it  resulted  from  necessity,  that  each  had  retained  the  right  of 
deciding  such  a  question  for  itself. — This  effect  was  not  the  con 
sequence  of  any  want  of  power  in  the  Old  Congress  "  to  enforce" 
their  decisions,  as  the  Proclamation  supposes,  for  mere  power 


52  A   REVIEW    OF   THE 

can  never  make  right ;  it  flowed  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case. 
No  arbiter  is  ever  at  liberty  to  decide  for  the  parties,  what  is  the 
subject  submitted  to  him  by  them  :  it  is  his  province  to  determine 
only  that  which  they  agree  is  so  submitted.  If  the  parties  and 
their  common  arbiter  differ,  as  to  the  extent  of  their  submission, 
it  would  be  idle  for  him  to  decide  this  matter,  because  the  parties 
would  at  once  agree  to  annul  his  decision,  and  to  hold  it  for  naught. 

But  if  the  common  arbiter  and  one  of  the  parties  concur  as  to 
this  point,  and  therein  differ  from  tl>e  other  party,  wherever  there 
exists  a  tribunal  superior  to  them  all,  to  that  forum  the  dissenting 
party  may  appeal,  to  determine  whether  the  matter  decided  was 
within  his  submission,  or  not. 

Where  no  such  tribunal  exists  however,  (as  is  always  the  case 
where  sovereigns  are  the  parties,)  it  is  of  necessity,  that  each  must 
decide  this  question  for  itself. 

Nor  is  the  faith  of  any  pledged  by  the  submission,  to  abide  by 
any  decision  which  it  believes  to  have  been  unauthorized  by  that 
act.  There  is  no  necessity  to  "annul"  such  a  decision,  because 
if  made  without  authority^it  is  already  null  and  void  of  itself ;  and 
in  refusing  to  submit  to  its  execution,  the  party  so  refusing  simply 
affirms  this  fact,  and  denies  the  obligation  of  an  act  of  lawless 
power  and  usurped  authority. 

If  this  was  not  so,  no  prudent  individual  woiild,  and  no  sov 
ereign  could  agree,  to  submit  any  matter  whatever,  however  un 
important  it  might  be,  to  the  arbitrament  of  another. — For,  if  the 
submission  of  one  matter,  could  ever  be  considered  as  communi 
cating  a  right  to  determine  any  other  matter  not  submitted ;  or 
what  is  the  same  thing,  if  the  submission  of  one  matter  to  the 
arbitrament  of  a  common  arbiter,  communicated  to  him,  the  right 
to  determine  for  the  parties,  the  extent  of  their  submission,  and 
bind  their  faith  to  abide  by  his  determination,  whatever  that  may 
be,  this  arbiter,  although  designed  to  be  a  Judge  merely,  becomes 
at  once  a  sovereign,  whose  authority  is  without  stint  or  limit.  In 
the  case  of  a  submission  made  by  sovereigns,  they  would  strip 
themselves  of  sovereignty  by  the  very  act  of  submission ;  for  he 
who  holds  all  his  rights  at  the  will  or  discretion  of  any  other,  is 
no  longer  a  sovereign,  but  a  mere  dependent  for  the  enjoyment  of 
such  rights  upon  this  other. 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  53 

I  have  spent  more  time  in  exhibiting  the  falsehood  of  this  new 
doctrine  put  forth  in  the  Proclamation,  than  its  native  deformity 
perhaps  required.  But  it  was  necessary  to  do  so,  I  thought,  be 
cause  it  was  obviously  designed,  to  constitute  the  foundation 
of  another  proposition,  of  a  like  kind,  which  is  afterwards  an 
nounced  ;  and  it  was  better  to  crush  this  monster  while  yet  in  its 
egg  state,  than  suffer  it  to  be  hatched  unnoticed,  and  then  to  come 
upon  us  in  all  the  terrors  of  a  fiery  Dragon,  bearing  death  on  its 
wings,  and  pestilence  in  its  breath.  I  have  thus  brought  down 
the  political  history  of  these  now  United  States,  from  a  very  early 
period,  to  that  of  which  I  have  last  spoken.  I  have  shewn,  that 
in  their  colonial  state,  they  constituted  several  distinct  Societies, 
whose  affairs  were  regulated  by  governments  absolutely  independ 
ent  of  each  other;  that  the  misrule  of  the  mother  courtry  in 
duced  them  to  revolt  against  its  authority,  and  to  shake  off  these 
governments,  but  that  in  throwing  off  their  former  governments, 
they  did  not  dissolve  their  former  associations — the  Societies 
remained,  after  the  governments  were  no  more. — That  the  neces 
sity  for  government  to  regulate  the  affairs  of  every  Society,  then 
compelled  these  communities,  to  establish  some  form  of  govern 
ment,  each  tor  itself;  and  so  to  assert,  each  its  own  sovereignty 
and  independence. — That  a  decent  respect  for  the  opinions  of 
mankind,  induced  them  all  to  announce  this  their  new  condition  ; 
and  to  justify  the  step  they  had  taken. — And  that  this  was  the 
sole  object  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  which  so  far  from 
proclaiming  that  they  were  One  People  or  On  3  Nation,  in  its  own 
terms  declared  them  to  be  free  and  Independent  States. 

I  have  shewn  further,  that  to  secure  the  benefits  of  harmonious 
design,  and  concert  and  promptitude  of  action,  in  this  their  new 
condition  it  became  important,  to  confirm  their  Union  by  a 
league  of  confederacy,  declaring  what  were  the  objects  of  this 
Union,  and  by  what  means  these  objects  might  be  attained.— 
That  this  was  the  sole  purpose  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
which  while  establishing  a  general  government  for  all,  expressly 
reserved  to  each  of  the  States,  the  sovereignty,  freedom  and  inde 
pendence  they  had  before  assumed  respec  ively,  and  so  much  of 
their  former  powers,  jurisdictions  and  rights,  as  were  not,  by  that 
act,  expressly  delegated  to  the  government  thereby  created — and 


54  A    REVIEW    OF   THE 

that  it  is  false,  to  suppose,  that  under  these  Articles,  the  government 
thereby  created  became  an  absolute  government  without  limits  to 
its  authority ;  for  although  the  several  States  were  bound  to  sub 
mit  to  its  decision  in  all  matters  referred  to  its  determination  by 
the  Articles  of  Confederation  themselves,  yet  these  were  but  few 
in  number,  and  the  question  as  to  the  extent  of  the  submission, 
never  was,  and  could  not  have  been  submitted  by  the  States 
reserving  their  sovereignty,  but  the  determination  of  this  ques 
tion,  so  far  as  it  might  interest  any  une,  was  necessarily  retained 
by  each  of  the  States  for  itself. 

From  all  this,  I  feel  myself  justified  in  saying,  that  the  original 
sovereignty  of  the  States,  assumed  by  them  in  1776,  remained 
unimpaired,  until  the  adoption  of  the  present  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  in  1789.  Whether  by  this  instrument,  that  sover 
eignty  was  then  annulled,  is  the  question  which  I  will  next  examine. 
At  present,  I  will  take  leave  to  say,  that  as  the  existing  political 
condition  of  these  States,  is  to  be  sought  for  in  the  Federal  Con 
stitution  alone,  it  is  to  be  re<m>tted  that  the  President  thought  it 

'  O  <T5 

right,  in  his  late  Proclamation,  to  ascend  to  a  period  antecedent 
to  the  formation  of  this  government,  in  order  to  teach  the  People, 
what  is  their  situation  under  it.  There  was  no  necessity  for  this 
certainly,  as  he  himself  has  proved;  and  if  he  had  confined  him 
self  to  a  construction  of  the  present  Constitution,  although  he 
might  have  been  supposed  to  err  in  this,  he  would  at  least  have 
avoided  such  numerous  inconsistencies,  and  gross  historical  mis 
takes,  as  are  now  exhibited  every  where  in  his  work,  to  the  great 
mortification  of  many  of  those  who  wiohed  to  be  his  friends. 

But  the  new  school  of  which  he  has  become  a  proselyte,  in  ex 
acting  passive  obedience  and  non-resistance  to  all  its  precepts, 
seems  to  have  imposed  upon  him  as  a  probationary  penance  for 
all  his  former  sins  against  its  faith,  that  he  should  not  only  pub 
licly  abjure  the  creed  whose  truth  he  has  so  often  and  so  recently 
affirmed,  but  that  he  should  also  proclaim  from  his  high  place, 
the  infallibility  and  supremacy  of  the  Pontiff,  and  that  these 
States  never  were  his  sovereigns.  Less  than  this  would  not  have 
been  accepted  as  a  sufficient  atonement  for  his  former  offences,  or 
as  a  satisfactory  token  to  entitle  him  to  admission  to  the  commun 
ion  of  those  political  Saints,  the  sanctity  of  some  of  whom,  is  at 
least  as  questionable,  as  the  truth  of  their  new  doctrines. 


PEOCLAMATION   OF   PKESIDENT   JACKSON.  55 


VII. 

NORFOLK,  January  16,  1833. 

THE  scene  is  again  shifted  and  the  Proclamation  after  as 
serting,  and  striving  in  vain  to  maintain,  the  doctrines  of  the  new 
ultra  Federal  School,  that  these  States  never  were  Sovereign,  at 
last  comes  clown  to  the  Old  Federal  faith,  that  the  States, 
although  once  Sovereign,  are  not  so  now,  because,  by  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States,  to  use  the  words  of  this  Proclama 
tion,  "they  surrendered  many  of  their  essential  parts  of  sov 
ereignty,"  and  therefore,  "  were  no  longer  Sovereign." 

I  freely  admit  the  truth  of  this  conclusion,  if  its  premises  are 
correct.  Nay,  I  go  further  even  than  the  author  of  this  Procla 
mation  ;  for  I  concede,  that  if  the  States  have  ever  surrendered  the 
smallest  factional  part  of  their  sovereignty,  they  thereupon  ceased 
to  be  sovereign ;  and  so  far  from  retaining  "  their  entire  sover 
eignty,"  they  have  lost  not  only  all  this,  but  with  it  their  freedom 
and  independence  also.  Shew  me,  then,  the  transfer  by  the  States 
of  any  portion  of  their  Sovereignty,  and  I  will  willingly  admit  that 
all  of  it  is  lost.  JSTor  do  I  regard  it  as  worth  an  effort,  to  enquire, 
whether  they  may  have  saved  in  its  wreck,  any  vain  and  useless 
bauble,  to  serve  as  a  memorial  of  their  former  condition,  in  pre 
senting  perpetually  to  their  view,  the  fact,  that  even  this  worth 
less  plaything,  must  now  be  held  under  the  mere  courtesy  of  an 
other.  I  care  not  much  either,  who  the  new  Sovereign  of  the 
States  may  be,  to  whom  their  former  Sovereignty  has  been 
surrendered.  Whether  he  is  the  Ox  Apis,  who  they  had  seen 
calved  in  their  own  fields,  fatted  in  their  own  pastures,  and  had 
then  in  their  own  folly  consecrated  as  an  Idol ;  or  whether  he  is 
the  great  King,  the  majority,  the  necessary  and  legitimate  Sov 
ereign  of  every  "  Nation,"  which  has  not  yet  appointed  some 
other  Chieftain  to  rule  over  it.  The  privilege  of  choosing  a 


56  A   EEVIEW   OF  THE 

master,  is  of  no  value  in  my  eyes,  except  that  if  the  States  must 
Lave  one,  I  should  prefer  one  to  many;  for  I  have  high  authority 
for  the  belief,  that  none  can  serve  two  masters  at  the  same  time. 

But  is  it  true,  that  these  States  have  ever  surrendered  any  part 
of  their  sovereignty  ? 

To  answer  this  question,  we'  must  first  endeavour  to  form  a 
correct  opinion  of  what  Sovereignty  is.  Now,  what  is  Sov 
ereignty?  Sovereignty  is  supremacy.  A  Sovereign,  according 
to  the  very  derivation  of  the  word,  is  one  who  is  over  all,  and 
who,  therefore,  can  have  no  superior. — Strictly,  then,  there  is  no 
existing  Sovereign,  but  He  who  made  all,  who  preserves  all,  and 
who  by  His  almighty  power,  may  at  any  time  rightfully,  annihi 
late  all.  When  the  vanity  of  human  Rulers,  appropriated  to 
themselves  a  name  and  character,  which,  of  right  belong  only  to 
their  Creator,  they  tried  to  preserve  all  their  attributes,  although 
limiting  their  application  to  a  more  narrow  sphere. 

An  earthly  Sovereign  thus  becomes,  one  who  is  over  all  his 
subjects,  who  may  of  right  do  within  his  own  dominions,  all  that 
is  physically  possible,  and  which  does  not  contravene  the  will  of 
his  God.  Such  is  human  sovereignty,  which  alone  I  am  now 
considering. 

Founded  upon  this  simple  truth,  is  that  great  maxim  of  the 
public  law,  which  asserts  the  equality  of  States  ;  for  as  all  States 
must  have  sovereignty,  and  as  sovereignty  is  supremacy,  there 
fore,  all  States  are  equal.  From  this  maxim,  do  all  Treaties  derive 
their  obligation  ;  for  although  these  instruments  are  rarely  exe 
cuted  by  the  Sovereign  parties  in  person,  but  by  their  agents  duly 
appointed  for  that  purpose,  (whether  mediately  or  immediately 
matters  not,)  the  acts  so  rat  tied,  are  considered  as  the  acts  of  the 
Sovereigns  themselves,  who  being  equals,  may  properly  contract, 
which  could  not  well  be  if  the  parties  \vere  not  equal.  Standing 
on  this  well  established  doctrine  of  the  equality  of  the  States,  do 
— "we  the  People,"  the.  only  legitimate  Sovereign  in  this  land, 
erect  our  head,  high  as  the  proudest  he  who  sits  upon  a  throne, 
because  we  too  are  sovereign,  and  like  him  may  rightfully  do 
within  our  own  dominions,  all  that  mortals  may. 

Having  thus  shewn  what  Sovereignty  is,  and  proved  the  truth 
of  my  definition  by  exhibiting  its  acknowledged  effects,  I  will 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  57 

endeavor  to  make  this  more  manifest  by  contrast,  in  shewing 
what  sovereignty  is  not.  This  is  necessary,  because,  it  is  only  by 
confounding  Sovereignty  with  something  else,  that  any  difference 
has  ever  arisen,  in  the  determination  of  the  question  which 
I  have  first  proposed. — Sovereignty  is  not  Government.  If  it 
was,  as  all  Sovereignty  is  Supremacy,  every  government  under 
the  Sim  of  necessity,  would  be  an  absolute  and  unchecked  Des 
potism  ;  nor  could  free  governments  exist.  But  as  Sovereignty 
and  Government  are  not  the  same,  we  may  readily  discern,  how 
it  is,  that  although  sovereignty  is  the  same  wherever  it  exists, 
yet  governments  are  infinitely  diversified:  Sovereignty,  like 
truth,  is  an  indivisible  unit.  It  may  be  enjoyed  by  one,  or  by 
many,  at  the  same  time,  but  then  all  the  persons  make  but  one 
Sovereign,  as  all  the  parceners  make  but  one  heir.  Government 
being  a  mere  delegation  or  assumption  of  power,  jurisdiction  and 
authority,  each  of  which  subjects  are  infinitely  divisible,  may 
have  as  many  hues  as  the  Chamelion,  as  many  forms  as  Proteus. 

Although  sovereignty  and  government  are  distinct,  easy  sepa 
rable,  and,  in  modern  times,  often  found  separated,  yet  as  the 
rights  of  sovereignty  and  the  powers  of  government  may,  and  for 
a  long  time  did,  co-exist,  and  in  the  same  persons,  the  two  became 
confounded  ;  and  it  is  always  difficult  to  remove  any  error  con 
firmed  by  long  habit.  Galileo  suffered  in  a  dungeon  of  the  In 
quisition,  for  presuming  to  demonstrate  that  the  earth  revolved 
around  the  sun,  and  Sidney  died  on  a  scaffold  as  a  Traitor,  for 
daring  to  prove,  that  government  was  not  of  divine  origin.  It 
was  reserved  for  American  Statesmen  to  give  a  practical  illustra 
tion  of  the  great  truths  which  he  taught,  by  inducing  their  fellow- 
citizens,  while  establishing  governments,  to  retain  their  own 
sovereignty  unimpaired,  and  so  to  shew,  that  sovereignty  and 
government  were  not  only  separable  and  distinct,  but  that  they 
ought  not  ever  to  be  again  united  in  this  land,  by  any  who  wish 
to  be  free.  This  is  the  true  American  System,  which  has  been 
but  little  understood,  and  therefore  has  been  but  imperfectly  imi 
tated  anywhere  else,  as  yet. 

Notwithstanding  sovereignty  and  government  are  not  the  same, 
yet  it  is  readily  conceded,  that  where  the  rights  of  sovereignty 
are  admitted  to  be  possessed  by  any  government,  there  the  gov- 


58  A   REVIEW    OF   THE 

ernment  becomes  the  sovereign,  and  will  continue  such  as  long  as 
it  enjoys  these  rights,  no  matter  by  what  means  they  may  have 
been  acquired. 

The  first  and  highest  of  these  rights  of  sovereignty,  nay,  that 
which  comprehends  all  the  others,  is  the  right  to  create  a  govern 
ment  to  regulate  the  affairs  of  all  the  subjects  of  the  sovereign, 
and  to  amend,  alter,  or  abolish  this  government,  at  its  pleasure. 
Stripped  of  this  right,  sovereignty  is  but  a  worthless  name :  but 
while  this  right  is  retained,  although  the  government  created  by 
the  sovereign's  will  may  be  endowed  with  the  plenary  Power  of 
a  Roman  perpetual  Pictator,  yet  as  it  lives  but  by  the  will  of  its 
Creator,  it  would  be  idle  to  call  such  a  government  a  sovereignty. 

When  I  speak  of  the  right  to  create  new,  and  abolish  former 
governments,  as  the  sure  index  and  test  of  sovereignty,  I  do  not, 
of  course,  refer  to  force.  That  may  be,  and  more  often  has  been, 
employed  to  destroy,  than  to  preserve,  rights  of  all  kinds. 

What  I  mean  to  assert  is  simply  this :  wherever  a  power  exists 
in  any  Country,  which  power  is  admitted  by  all  of  that  Country 
to  possess  the  right  of  creating,  amending,  or  abolishing  the  gov 
ernment  of  that  country,  this  power  must  be  superior  to  the  gov 
ernment  created  by  itself,  and  is  the  true  and  only  sovereign  of 
that  country.  Alterations  of  government  made  by  such  a  power, 
are  not  properly  termed  Revolutions. 

They  exhibit  only  a  change  of  will  on  the  part  of  an  acknowl 
edged  Sovereign ;  a  mere  peaceful  repetl  of  some  former  ordi 
nance,  and  the  enaction  of  a  new  one,  designed  to  attain  the  same 
great  objects,  by  different,  and,  as  the  Sovereign  believes,  by  bet 
ter  and  more  appropriate  means. — Thus,  when  the  King,  Lords, 
and  Commons  of  Great  Britain  in  Parliament  assembled,  in  vir 
tue  of  the  omnipotence  or  sovereignty  of  that  body,  recently  altered 
the  foundations  of  their  government,  by  a  mere  Statute,  the  alter 
ation  was  well  termed  a  Reform,  because  those  who  made  the 
change,  it  was  acknowledged  on  all  hands,  had  the  right  to  make 
it.  So,  too,  when  the  King  of  France,  a  few  years  since,  granted 
to  his  subjects  a  new  form  of  .government,  by  a  charter,  wherein 
was  defined  their  rights  and  his  duties,  this  was  not  Revolution, 
but  Reform  of  another  kind  only;  for  he  who  granted  this  char 
ter,  being  an  acknowledged  Sovereign,  had  the  confessed  author- 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  59 

ity  so  to  do.  And  when  these  States  abrogated  the  old  Articles 
of  Confederation,  and  established  the  present  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  this  was  not  Revolution,  but  Reform  of  a  kind  still 
different,  because,  it  was  conceded  by  all,  that  those  who  made, 
might  of  right  alter.  But  when  the  People  of  these  Colonies 
shook  off  their  allegiance  to  their  former  acknowledged  Sovereign, 
and  asserted  their  freedom  and  Independence,  this  was  Revolu 
tion,  and  not  Reform  ;  for  all  admitted  that  this  proceeding,  how 
ever  necessary  and  proper  it  might  be,  was  not  affected  in  virtue 
of  any  right  acknowledged  by  both  the  sovereign  and  subjects. 
Having  thus  shewn  what  sovereignty  is,  and  pointed  out  the  sure 
test,  by  which  its  existence  and  abode  may  always  be  ascertained, 
I  will  now  endeavor,  by  the  application  of  this  test,  to  determine, 
whether  these  States  have  lost  any  portion  of  their  sovereignty  by 
their  adoption  of  the  present  Constitution  of  the  United  States.— 
And  first,  by  whom  was  this  Constitution  adopted  ?  To  this  there 
can  be  but  one  answer :  it  was  adopted  by  the  People. — But  by 
what  People?  The  President,  in  his  Proclamation,  says:  "The 
People  of  the  United  States  formed  the  Constitution,  acting 
through  the  State  Legislatures,  in  making  the  compact  to  meet 
and  discuss  its  provisions,  and  acting  in  separate  Conventions 
when  they  ratified  those  provisions." 

This  statement,  although  correct  in  its  terms,  is  yet  much  too 
general  to  be  received  as  a  direct  and  positive  answer  to  my  ques 
tion.  Therefore,  as  I  do  not  wish  to  take  shelter  under  ambigui 
ties  of  any  kind,  I  will  say,  that  the  present  Federal  Constitution 
was  not  made  by  the  People  of  the  United  States,  acting  as  one 
mass,  or  "  Nation,"  or  by  the  will  of  the  majority  of  any  such 
mass :  but  it  was  made  by  the  People  of  the  several  States,  acting 
as  several  distinct  and  independent  commonwealths,  each  in  its 
own  separate  corporate  character,  and  each  binding  its  own  par 
ticular  minority,  by  the  will  of  its  own  particular  majority,  ac 
cording  to  its  own  established  usages,  and  without  regard  to  the 
will  of  any  other. 

A  single  well-known  historical  fact  will  put  this  beyond  all 
doubt. — Two  of  the  then  Thirteen  States,  North  Carolina  and 
Rhode  Island,  refused  to  adopt  this  Constitution  at  first,  nor  did 
they  do  so  until  some  time  after  the  government  which  was 


60  A   REVIEW   OF   THE 

thereby  created  had  gone  into  actual  operation  in  the  other  eleven 
States.  Yet,  although  the  population  of  each  of  these  States  con 
stituted  a  ratio  to  the  population  of  all  the  States,  even  less  than 
the  ratio  of  the  number  of  either  of  these  States  to  the  number  of 
all  the  States,  no  one  conceived,  that  either  of  these  States  could 
be  bound  by  the  will  of  a  great  majority  of  the  People  of  the 
other  States,  or  by  the  will  of  eleven-thirteenths  of  the  States 
themselves. 

Nor  did  any  one  ever  think,  that  the  will  of  that  portion  of  the 
citizens  of  either  of  these  States  who  approved  the  Constitution, 
and  wished  to  adopt  it,  was  not  rightfully  overruled  and  con 
trolled  by  the  will  of  the  majority  of  their  fellow-citizens  in  these 
States  respectively,  although,  as  I  have  said,  this  majority  was 
but  a  small  minority  of  all  the  States. 

This  is  decisive  to  shew,  that  in  adopting  the  Constitution,  the 
States  acted  as  cifmm unities  absolutely  independent  of  each  other, 
each  binding  its  own  people  to  adopt  or  reject,  as  the  constitution 
al  majority  of  that  particular  State  thought  best.  Here  then  is  a 
new  and  conclusive  piece  of  evidence,  to  prove,  the  sovereignty 
of  these  States  respectively;  for  none  "but  a  Sovereign,"  could 
right  fully  have  abolished  the  old  government  formed  by  the  Arti 
cles  of  Confederation  and  have  established  this  new  government 
in  its  stead. 

Having  shewn  by  whom  this  government  was  created,  I  will 
next  enquire,  by  whom  it  is  preserved?  The  answer  to  this,  is 
like  that  given  to  the  former  question  :  this  government  is  pre 
served  only  by  the  agency  of  the  States.  Unless  the  States  pre 
scribe  the  time  when,  the  place  where,  the  manner  in  which,  and 
the  persons  by  whom,  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  United  States  may  be  elected,  there  could  ba  no  such  Rep 
resentatives  chosen.  Unless  the  States  elect  them,  there  could  be 
no  Senators  of  the  United  States.  Unless  the  States  prescribe  the 
mode  in  which  Electors  for  choosing  a  President  and  Yice-Presi- 
dent  of  the  United  States  shall  be  appointed,  neither  of  these  of 
fices  could  he  filled.  And  without  a  President  to  nominate,  and 
Senate  to  advise,  there  could  be  no  Judges  appointed. 

But  a  government  without  agents  to  perform  either  legislative, 
executive  or  judicial  functions,  would  be  as  deformed  a  monster, 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  61 

as  that  of  which  the  President  Las  spoken  in  this  Proclamation,  a 
Nation  for  certain  purposes  only. 

It  may  be  said  perhaps,  that  although  some  of  the  States  might 
refuse  or  omit  to  pass  the  laws  necessary  to  give  effect  to  those 
provisions  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  which  require  the  appoint 
ment  of  a  President  and  Vice-President,  of  a  Senate  and  House 
of  Representatives,  yet  so  long  as  others  do  so,  the  government 
would  go  on,  heedless  of  the  recusant  States.  I  will  not  stop  to 
enquire  whether  this  is  so ;  for  even  if  it  is,  it  does  not  vary  my 
argument,  the  object  of  which  is  to  shew,  that  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  is  not  preserved  by  its  own  means,  but  solely  at  the  will 
and  by  means  of  the  States.  Its  absolute  dependance  upon  these 
for  its  existence,  would  not  be  less,  if  that  dependance  was  upon 
some,  and  not  upon  all :  nor  would  the  tenure  upon  which  it  holds 
all  its  powers,  be  one  whit  less  precarious,  if  these  powers  are  held 
under  the  will  of  a  majority  only,  than  if  they  were  held  under 
the  will  of  all  the  States.  In  either  case,  it  is  a  dependant  thing, 
and  its  dependance  for  existence  is  upon  the  States. 

It  may  be  said  also,  that  the  faith,  of  the  States  is  pledged,  and 
all  their  officers  are  bound  by  an  oath,  to  support  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  ;  therefore,  it  is  not  fair  to  reason  from  a 
supposition  which  rests  upon  a  breach  of  a  nation's  faith,  and  the 
violation  of  the  oaths  of  its  People. 

This  is  all  true,  but  it  only  proves  that  for  which  I  am  contend 
ing,  that  this  Federal  Government  is  preserved  solely  by  the 
States,  who  of  necessity,  are,  and  must  be,  the  sole  judges  of  what 
their  faith  requires;  and  who  could  absolve  their  own  citizens 
from  the  obligations  of  this  oath,  as  easily  as  they  did  from  the 
obligations  of  that  which  pledged  their  allegiance  to  the  British 
Crown. — And  here  let  me  beg  of  those  who  rely  upon  this  argu 
ment  of  pledged  faith,  to  read  the  last  clause  of  the  thirteenth 
Article  of  the  Old  Confederation  ;  and  in  doing  so,  to  remember 
the  cases  of  North  Carolina  and  Rhode  Island,  to  which  I  have 
before  adverted.  I  beg  every  Virginian  too,  to  think  of  his  own 
oath,  of  fidelity,  and  to  settle  writh  his  own  conscience  whether 
this  is  abrogated  by  that  to  which.  I  have  before  referred. 

Having  thus  shewn,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
was  established  by  the  wrill  of  the  several  States,  and  is  preserved 


62  A   BEVIEW   OF   THE 

only  by  the  agency  of  the  several  States,  I  will  next  enquire  by 
whom  it  may  he  altered  ? 

The  fifth  article  of  the  Constitution  itself,  answers  this  question. 
It  will  there  he  seen,  that  where  amendments  are  proposed  by 
two-thirds  of  both  branches  of  Congress,  or  by  a  Convention 
called  for  proposing  amendments,  in  either  case,  such  amend 
ments  cannot  be  valid  as  parts  of  the  Constitution,  until  the 
amendments  so  proposed  shall  be  "ratified  by  the  Legislatures  of 
three-fourths  of  the  several  States,  or  by  Conventions  in  three- 
fourths  thereof,  as  the  one  or  the  other  mode  of  ratification  may 
be  proposed  by  the  Congress.1'  By  this  it  is  obvious,  that  the 
States  who  established  and  who  preserve  this  Constitution,  can  al 
ter  it ;  and  the  only  difference  between  the  powers  exerted  to 
create  and  to  alter,  is  merely  this,  that  in  the  creation,  the  assent 
of  each  State  was  necessary  to  make  it  obligatory  upon  each ;  but 
it  may  be  amended  by  the  concurrence  of  three-fourths  only  of 
the  States,  and  amendments  wThen  so  ratified,  will  be  obligatory 
upon  all.  In  this  mode  it  has  been  four  times  amended.  If,  then, 
these  States  have  created,  do  preserve,  and  may  at  any  time 
(three- fourths  of  them  consenting)  alter  this  Constitution,  and  this 
too  according  to  its  own  provisions,  is  it  not  idle  to  say,  that  they 
are  not  sovereign,  because  they  have  surrendered  many  of  their 
essential  parts  of  sovereignty  by  this  Instrument  ?  They  may 
have  surrendered  much  of  their  power,  much  of  their  jurisdiction, 
and  many  of  their  rights,  by  this  Instrument ;  but  one  right  they 
have  not  surrendered,  certainly,  and  that  is  their  right  to  alter 
this  instrument  itself,  and  so  cancel  by  their  will,  the  very  act 
their  will  created,  and  by  which,  it  is  said,  they  have  deprived 
themselves  of  their  Sovereignty. 

This  very  right  to  make  and  to  alter  government  when  made, 
is  Sovereignty.  It  constitutes  the  possessor  of  it  the  earthly  supe 
rior  of  those  who  are  the  earthly  superiors  of  all  others,  and  so 
makes  Supremacy  in  that  land  where  the  right  is  admitted  to 
exist. 

1  will  pursue  this  examination  further,  in  another  number. 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PEESIDENT  JACKSON.  63 


VIII. 

NORFOLK,  January  16,  1833. 

ONE  obvious  error  pervades  every  part  of  this  Proclamation 
wherein  its  author  speaks  of  Sovereignty.  Confounding  sover 
eignty  with  government,  and  graduating  the  powers  of  govern 
ment  according  to  some  fanciful  scale,  he  infers,  that  whoever 
may  possess  what  he  considers  the  great  powers  of  government, 
must  be  Sovereign  ;  and  that  such  as  have  not  these  powers,  are 
not  Sovereign.  Hence  he  concludes,  that  as  the  States,  by  the 
Federal  Constitution,  have  granted  away  "  the  right  to  make 
Treaties — declare  war — levy  taxes — and  to  exercise  exclusive  Ju 
dicial  and  Legislative  Powers  " — they  are  no  longer  Sovereign ; 
but  that  "the  allegiance  of  their  Citizens,  was  transferred,  in  the^ 
first  instance,  to  the  government  of  the  United  States." — And  he 
asks  in  triumph,  "How,  then,  can  that  State  be  said  to  be  Sover 
eign  and  independent,  whose  Citizens  owe  obedience  to  laws  not 
made  by  it,  and  whose  magistrates  are  sworn  to  disregard  those 
laws,  when  they  come  in  conflict  with  those  passed  by  another?'1 

This  can  scarcely  be  called  sophistry,  it  is  palpable  mistake, 
produced  by  ignorance  of  the  great  characteristic  difference  be 
tween  two  subjects  totally  distinct  from  each  other,  by  which  ig 
norance  the  author  is  frequently  lead  to  confound  them. — If  he 
would  but  have  paused  a  moment,  to  ask  himself  a  few  plain 
questions,  his  own  answers  to  them  would  have  prevented  him 
from  falling  into  any  such  errors.  Is  any  government  within 
these  States,  whether  general  or  particular,  whether  State  or  Fed 
eral,  created  by  its  own  will  ?  If  it  is,  such  government  must  cer 
tainly  be  Sovereign,  for  none  other  than  a  Sovereign  can  create 
government.  But  if  it  is  not,  then  it  is  as  certainly  the  creation 
of  the  will  of  some  other ;  and  its  Creator  must  continue  to  be  the 
superior  of  its  creature,  unless  in  the  act  of  creation,  or  at  some 
other  time,  it  has  transferred  to  the  Creature,  the  right  to  pre- 


64  A   REVIEW   OF   THE 

serve  itself,  in  opposition  to  the  will  of  the  Creator ;  in  which 
case  also,  the  creature  may  become  a  Sovereign. 

Now  does  any  government,  of  any  kind,  within  these  States, 
enjoy  the  right  to  preserve  itself  against  the  will  of  its  creators? 
There  is  no  one  to  be  found,  as  yet  at  least,  so  profligate  as  to  af 
firm  this,  although  it  is  apparent,  that  there  are  some,  who  would 
try  to  prove  by  argument  what  they  dare  not  assart  a?  fact ;  and 
who  at  some  time  or  other,  will  probably  offer  to  establish  such  a 
right,  "ultima  rationed  Then,  if  none  of  our  governments  are 
created  by  their  own  will,  or  can  be  preserved  by  their  own  will, 
when  that  is  in  opposition  to  the  will  of  those  by  whom  they  were 
created,  there  is  no  semblance  of  truth  in  the  position,  that  any  of 
them  are  Sovereign:  because,  they  too,  are  all  of  them  compelled 
to  acknowledge  a  Superior.  And  the  argument  which  would  in 
fer  sovereignty  in  one,  from  the  want  of  it  in  another,  must  be 
unsound,  unless  it  can  be  shewn,  that  of  two  falsehoods  one  must 
be  true. 

"  The  right  to  make  Treaties,"  etc.,  is  not  a  more  direct  emana 
tion  of  sovereignty,  than  the  right  to  punish  crimes,  to  prescribe 
the  modes  in  which  alone  property  may  be  acquired  and  held,  to 
create  Corporations  (whether  for  Banking  or  any  other  purpose), 
and  the  like.  If  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  former  powers,  prove 
Sovereignty  in  the  general  government,  the  exclusive  possession 
of  the  latter  powers,  which  are  equally  necessary  and  important, 
would  prove  Sovereignty  in  the  particular  governments;  and  we 
should  then  see  the  case  of  two  Sovereigns — of  "  Two  Kings  of 
Brentford."  But  as  such  a  conception  has  never  been  entertained, 
except  in  the  imagination  of  a  humorous  dramatist  desirous  to 
divert  by  a  ludicrous  exhibition,  I  presume  grave  Statesmen  would 
not  resort  to  such  authority,  to  prove  the  verity  of  their  theories.— 
Because  there  cannot  be  two  Sovereigns  in  one  Country  at  the 
same  time,  however,  it  does  not  follow,  that  there  is  no  Sovereign 
there.  In  denying  Polytheism,  no  man  affirms  Atheism,  simply 
because  both  are  falsehoods.  Nor  in  denying  that  all  or  any  of 
the  governments  within  these  States  are  Sovereign,  does  any  one 
affirm,  that  there  is  no  Sovereignty  here.  Sovereignty  must  abide 
in  every  State,  or  it  cannot  be  a  State.  It  abides  in  this  country 
as  perfectly  as  it  does  in  Russia,  or  in  Turkey,  not  in  the  general 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  65 

or  particular  governments,  however,  but  in  the  People ;  and  who 
The  People  are,  I  have  already  shewn. 

This  Sovereign  People  might,  if  they  pleased,  have  exerted  di 
rectly  all  the  powers  which,  in  the  exercise  of  their  Sovereign 
will,  they  have  seen  fit  to  delegate  to  others.  If  they  had  done 
so,  we  should  have  had  a  pure  Democracy,  where,  as  in  a  pure 
Despotism,  the  Sovereignty  and  the  government  are  united. 

But  they  did  not  choose  to  do  so ;  and  thought  it  wiser  to  es 
tablish  a  Representative  Democracy.  It  results  from  the  very 
nature  of  this  form  of  government,  that  the  Sovereignty  remains 
with  the  People,  while  the  government  is  in  the  magistracy,  their 
Representatives,  agents,  and  servants.  Grouping  all  these  mag 
istrates  into  two  great  classes,  of  Federal  and  State  agents,  the 
Sovereign  People  have  said  to  one  of  these  classes,  we  assign  to 
you  the  duty  of  making  treaties  for  us,  etc.  To  the  other  class 
they  have  said,  we  assign  to  you  the  duty  of  punishing  crimes 
committed  against  us. 

In  assigning  these  different  duties  to  their  different  agents,  how 
ever,  the  Sovereign  People  neither  impair  their  own  Sovereignty, 
nor  create  one  of  those  classes  of  magistrates  superior  to  the  other ; 
because,  they  are  all  but  servants,  acting  in  virtue  of  the  power 
which  each  derives  from  their  common  master,  and  for  his  benefit. 
Nor  is  it  possible  to  institute  any  comparison  between  the  powers 
granted  to  these  different  classes  of  agents,  in  order  to  determine, 
in  that  way,  which  is  the  higher ;  because,  things  totally  unlike 
cannot  be  compared.  Is  the  power  to  prescribe  in  what  way 
alone  property  may  be  acquired,  held,  or  transmitted,  greater  cr 
less,  than  the  power  to  mak%  Treaties  ?  Is  the  power  to  preserve 
or  take  away  liberty  greater,  or  less,  than  the  power  to  declare 
war  ?  Is  the  power  to  forfeit  life  greater,  or  less,  than  the  power 
to  levy  duties  and  imposts?  If  we  pursue  this  scheme  a  little  fur 
ther,  and  descending  from  the  two  groups  of  Federal  and  State 
agents,  examine  the  constituent  parts  of  each  of  them,  the  subject 
will  become  more  plain.  Thus,  the  Sovereign  People,  in  their 
different  charters,  or  laws  for  the  government  of  their  representa 
tive  agents,  say  to  their  Legislative  servants,  in  either  class,  you 
shall  make  laws  for  us  upon  certain  subjects ;  to  their  Judicial 
servants,  you  shall  judge  and  decide  for  the  parties  before  you, 
5 


66  A   EEV1EW   OF   THE 

how  these  laws  so  made  apply  to  their  cases  respectively;  and  to 
their  Executive  servants,  you  shall  execute  these  laws  and  judg 
ments.  Each  constituent  portion  of  either  class  is  so  made  the 
co-ordinate  of  and  distinct  from  every  other  constituent  portion 
of  that  class,  not  dependant  for  its  powers  upon  any  of  the  other 
portions,  but  upon  the  common  superior  of  all,  the  Sovereign 
People.  Now,  it  is  as  easy  to  conceive,  how  two  or  twenty  gov 
ernments  may  be  made  co-ordinates  of  each  other,  as  to  conceive 
how  three  or  more  co-ordinate  departments  of  the  same  govern 
ment  may  be  made  so. 

Both  cases  pre-snppose  a  superior  to  all,  by  which  alone  such 
co-ordination  can  be  established  :  for  if  any  one  of  the  classes,  or 
of  the  Departments  of  either,  should  undertake  to  establish  a  co 
ordinate  of  itself,  the  very  fact  of  such  a  creation  would  shew 
superiority  in  the  one  and  subordination  in  the  other. 

Then,  if  the  author  of  this  Proclamation,  wishes  to  prove  the 
want  of  Sovereignty  in  the  State  governments,  by  shewing  that 
they  cannot  exercise  certain  great  powers  of  government,  he 
might  save  himself  much  trouble,  for  his  conclusion  is  a  truism. 
'None  of  these  governments  are  now,  or  ever  were,  Sovereign. 
But  it  is  equally  a  truism,  or  if  not,  his  own  argument  must  prove 
it,  at  least  to  himself,  that  neither  is  the  government  of  the 
United  States  Sovereign  ;  because  that,  too,  wants  many  of  the 
most  important  powers  of  government.  It  is  idle,  however,  to 
ask  in  reference  to  the  States  themselves,  "how  can  that  State  be 
sovereign  and  independent,  whose  citizens  owe  obedience  to  laws 
not  made  by  it?"  Because,  in  a  Representative  Democracy,  no 
law  ever  was  made  by  the  State  itself,  but  by  its  Legislative 
agents ;  and  if  these  agents  exist  in  both  of  its  two  governments, 
State  and  Federal,  the  law  made  by  such  agents,  is  as  much  made 
by  itself,  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  In  either  case,  a  ques 
tion  may  arise,  whether  the  law  so  made  is  in  pursuance  of  the 
authority  given  by  the  sovereign  People  to  their  Legislative 
agents,  to  make  laws ;  and  if  it  is  once  conceded,  that  the  act  is 
not  in  pursuance  of  this  authority,  then  no  man  can  doubt,  that 
such  an  act,  whether  done  by  State  or  Federal  Legislative  agents, 
is  an  act  of  mere  usurpation,  and  is  not  law,  although  it  may  pro 
fess  to  be  so,  and  wear  all  the  forms  of  law. 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  67 

The  author  of  this  Proclamation,  labours  under  another  strange 
hallucination,  when  lie  imagines,  that  the  magistrates  of  the  dif 
ferent  States  "  are  sworn  to  disregard  their  laws,  when  they  come 
in  conflict  with  the  laws  passed  by  another/'  No  such  oath  is, 
and  I  feel  very  confident,  ever  will  be  required  of  them.  It  is 
true,  that  they  are  all  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  equally  true  that  this  Constitution  declares, 
that  the  laws  made  "  in  pursuance  thereof,"  shall  be  the  supreme 
laws  of  the  land,  anything  in  the  Constitution  or  la  ,vs  of  any 
State,  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  But  to  make  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  they  must  be  in 
pursuance  of  the  Constitution  :  therefore,  if  the  laws  made  by  the 
Federal  Legislative  agents,  are  not  made  in  pursuance  of  that 
Constitution  which  the  State  magistrates  have  sworn  to  support, 
these  magistrates  not  only  ma}^,  but  must,  if  they  regard  the  ob 
ligations  of  this  oath,  declare  such  unauthorized  acts  not  to  be 
law,  and  procaed  to  execute  all  the  Constitutional  laws  of  the 
State,  which  may  be  found  in  conflict  with  such  pretended  and 
usurped  authority. 

I  acknowledge  that  I  was  startled  by  the  boldness  of  another  as 
sertion,  put  forth  in  this  Proclamation,  and  shocked  at  the  moral 
turpitude,  which  it  wantonly  imputed  to  me  and  to  thousands  of  oth 
ers,  some  of  whom,  while  dwelling  upon  this  earth  were  ever  re 
garded  not  only  as  wise,  but  as  being  what  is  far  better,  pure  of 
heart  as  mortals  may  be.  It  says,  in  speaking  of  the  States,  that 
"  the  allegiance  of  their  citizens  was  transferred  in  the  first  in 
stance,  to  the  government  of  the  United  States." 

I  am  now  so  old,  that  it  would  be  vain  for  me  to  attempt  to 
recollect,  how  often  in  the  course  of  a  long  life,  I  have  been  re 
quired  to  give  assurance  of  my  fidelity  to  my  native  State.  But 
this  I  know  well,  that  I  never  gave  this  pledge  of  my  faith  reluc 
tantly,  or  with  any  mental  reservation  whatever.  I  always  meant 
to  relinquish  and  renounce,  what  in  that  oath,  I  said  I  would 
"relinquish  and  renounce  the  character  of  subject  or  Citizen  of 
any  Prince  or  other  state  whatever.''  I  ahvays  intended  to  ab 
jure  what  in  that  oath,  I  did  "  abjure  all  allegiance  which  might 
be  claimed  of  me  by  any  such  prince  or  other  state." 

I  always  meant  to  be  what  I  then  swore  I  would  be,  "  faithful 


68  A   KEVIEW   OF   THE 

and  true  to  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia  so  long  as  I  continued 
a  citizen  thereof." 

Is  it  possible,  that  in  giving  these  repeated  pledges,  I  was  for 
sworn  ;  and  that  in  calling  my  Maker  to  witness  the  sincerity  and 
singleness  of  purpose  of  what  I  regarded  as  a  sacred  promise,  I 
was  but  invoking  his  wrath  upon  my  false  heart,  and  devoting 
my  immortal  soul  to  everlasting  perdition?  Has  my  country 
been  so  cruel  and  so  base  to  one  who  wished  to  be  dutiful,  as  to 
transfer  his  allegiance  to  another,  and  then  to  steal  from  his  strong 
attachment  to  her,  an  abjuration  of  the  very  allegiance  which  she 
had  transferred,  and  a  solemn  assurance  of  the  continuation  of 
that  fidelity  to  her,  which  she  had  already  relinquished  and  re 
nounced  ?  It  cannot  be.  The  Commonwealth  of  Virginia  could 
never  trifle  thus  and  so  meanly  and  wantonly  too,  with  her  faith 
ful  people.  If  they  have  been  led  into  error  by  her,  it  is  because 
she  was  first  deceived. 

Tell  me  then,  any  of  you  who  deceived  her,  you  who  assisted  in 
the  formation  and  the  adoption  of  any  instrument  that  has  trans 
ferred  your  allegiance  to  another,  and  afterwards  took  this  oath 
of  abjuration  and  fidelity  yourselves,  were  you  for-sworn  in  doing 
so  ?  I  answer  for  you  all,  for  those  who  are  dead,  as  well  as  for 
those  who  survive,  that  you  were  not,  and  for  you  as  well  as  for 
myself,  I  throw  back  this  foul  charge  upon  us  all,  come  it  from 
what  quarter  it  may.  Let  the  author  of  this  Proclamation  blun 
der  as  he  may,  in  reciting  our  past  political  history — let  him 
involve  himself  in  whatever  absurdities  and  inconsistencies 
he  lists,  in  seeking  to  establish  his  new  theory — let  him  rea 
son  as  erroneously  as  he  pleases,  as  to  the  powers  and  authori 
ties  of  his  government— all  this  may  be  pardoned.  But  when 
he  assails  the  faith  of  States,  and  seeks  to  falsify  the  truth  of 
their  people,  he  touches  subjects,  upon  which  no  man  living 
should  even  sportively  descant,  because  they  involve  relations  far 
above  his  wisdom,  even  if  that  was  much  greater  than  it  is. 

The  Commonwealth  of  Virginia  has  never  transferred  the  alle 
giance  of  her  citizens,  to  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
either  "  in  the  first  instance,"  or  at  any  other  time.  She  claims 
it  of  them  all  now,  as  strongly  as  she  did  on  the  29th  of  June, 
1776,  when  she  first  demanded  it,  and  at  any  and  at  every  other 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.      -  69 

time  since:  nor  can  any  man  living  point  to  the  act  or  instru 
ment  by  which  she  has  ever  surrendered  it.  Not  one  word  of 
any  such  transfer  is  seen,  or  ought  to  be  expected  to  appear  in 
the  declaration  of  Independence.  Not  one  word  of  any  such 
transfer  is  found  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation ;  so  far  from  it, 
that  instrument  directly  repudiates  any  such  notion  in  the  strong 
and  emphatic  words  which  it  employs.  Not  one  word  of  such  a 
transfer  is  to  be  met  with  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
which  in  all  its  provisions,  addresses  itself  to  the  People,  not  as 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  but  as  the  people  of  the  several 
States,  the  obedience  of  which  people  to  the  legitimate  mandates 
of  the  government  thereby  created,  is  claimed,  only  because  such 
obedience  has  been  promised,  in  their  behalf,  by  their  respective 
Sovereigns,  the  States,  in  their  several  ratifications  of  that  Instru 
ment.  Nor  have  the  citizens  of  any  State  ever  taken,  or  been 
required  to  take,  any  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  United  States,  or  to 
their  government ;  for  Congress  could  find  no  authority  for  doing 
so,  in  the  Constitution,  and  therefore  have  never  presumed  to  pre 
scribe  any  such  oath.  It  is  true,  many  swear  to  support  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States,  but  there  is  no  more  of  incompati 
bility  between  the  obligations  of  this  oath,  and  those  of  their 
oath  of  allegiance  to  a  State,  than  there  is  between  the  latter,  and 
the  obligations  of  the  oath  administered  to  any  witness  in  a 
Court  of  Justice.  The  oaths  relate  to  different  subjects ;  and  in 
swearing  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the 
party  taking  the  oath,  but  reaffirms  his  fidelity  to  his  State,  which 
has  chosen  to  adopt  this  Constitution  as  its  supreme  law,  and  so 
made  it  a  part  of  its  own  code. 

But  Congress  may  punish  Treason  against  the  United  States, 
and  the  Proclamation  says,  "  Treason  is  an  offence  against  Sov 
ereignty,  and  Sovereignty  must  reside  with  the  power  to  punish  it." 
Let  me  here  remark,  that  the  power  to  punish  Treason,  is  not  cited 
to  prove,  the  transfer  by  the  States  of  the  allegiance  of  their  Citi 
zens  to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  The  author  knew 
very  well,  that  even  the  acknowledged  subjects  of  any  foreign 
power,  might  be  punished  for  an  act  of  Treason,  just  as  properly, 
as  the  subjects  of  the  Sovereign  of  the  country  within  which  the 
Treason  was  committed.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  citizens  and 


70  A   REVIEW    OF   THE 

aliens  stand  upon  the  same  footing.  The  power  to  punish  Treason 
is  referred  to  merely  to  show,  that  the  government  possessing  this 
power  must  be  Sovereign,  because  "  Treason  is  an  offence  against 
Sovereignty."  'Now  with  all  due  respect  for  the  legal  learning  of 
the  author  of  this  State  paper,  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  suggest 
ing  to  him,  that  in  this  country  at  least  Treason  is  no  more  an 
offence  against  Sovereignty,  than  any  other  crime  that  may  be 
committed  within  our  dominions;  and  certainly  not  more  than 
sedition,  mutiny,  or  any  other  of  that  great  class  of  offences, 
which  strike  at  the  existence  of  subordination  by  manifesting  a 
contempt  for  the  authority  of  government.  All  crimes  which 
threaten  to  disturb  the  peace  and  good  order  of  society  (as  they 
all  do)  are  offences  against  the  government  of  that  society,  and 
against  the  dignity  of  the  Sovereign  by  which  such  government 
has  been  ordained,  for  the  special  purpose  of  preserving  this 
peace  and  good  order.  To  say  then,  that  Treason  is  an  offence 
against  sovereignty,  is  only  to  affirm  that  Treason  is  a  crime. 
But  when  this  author  adds,  that  "  sovereignty  must  reside  with 
the  power  to  punish  Treason,"  or  any  other  crime,  he  says  what  no 
constitutional  lawyer  can  admit ;  because  it'  it  was  true,  it  would 
prove  that  every  government  in  the  world  is  a  Sovereign,  since 
one  of  the  great  objects  in  all  government,  is  to  punish  crimes, 
and  Treason  is  usually  put  at  the  head  of  these,  for  in  the  eyes  of 
the  governments  which,  classify  offences,  the  greatest  is  that 
which  manifests  contempt  of  themselves. 

Suppose  it  was  admitted  however,  that  Treason  is  an  offence 
against  sovereignty,  and  that  sovereignty  must  reside  with  the 
power  to  punish  it,  the  learned  author  of  this  Proclamation  can 
not  surely  mean  to  assert,  that  the  hangman  who  has  the  power 
to  execute  a  traitor,  or  the  judge  who  pronounces  the  sentence  of 
death,  and  therein  gives  to  the  hangman  his  authority  to  execute 
it  or  even  the  Legislature  who  passed  the  law  inflicting  this  pun 
ishment,  and  directing  the  Judge  to  apply  it,  are  all  or  any  of 
them  Sovereigns.  He  must  admit  that  they  are  all,  each  in  his 
appropriate  sphere,  but  the  agents  and  delegates  of  that  high 
power,  which  by  its  constitution,  has  said  to  its  legislative  ser 
vants,  Do  you  declare  the  punishment  of  Treason,  to  its  Judi 
cial  servants,  do  you  declare  upon  whom  this  punishment  must 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  71 

justly  fall,  and  to  its  Executive  servant,  the  humble  hangman, 
do  you  execute  that  which  in  this  behalf,  you  may  be  required  to 
execute,  by  my  Judges.  Now  who  is  that  great  power,  in  whose 
name,  and  by  whose  authority  alone,  all  these  things  may  be 
done,  rightfully  ?  Certainly  not  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  but  the  People  who  made  that  government,  and  by  its 
Organic  law  delegated  to  all  these  their  respective  agents,  the 
authorities  1  have  stated.  Then  if  Treason  be  an  offence  against 
Sovereignty,  it  is  an  offence  against  the  People  who  constitute 
the  Sovereignty;  and  the  power  to  punish  it,  is  their  power, 
although  in  the  exertion  of  this  power,  they  may  call  for  the 
action  of  a  common  hangman.  We  are  so  brought  back  to  the 
former  question,  which  I  have  before  answered,  who  are  the 
People  ? 

This  number  is  already  drawn  out  to  a  much  greater  length 
than  I  intended,  and  must  now  be  closed,  but  the  subject  is  much 
too  important  to  be  dropped  at  this  point ;  I  will  therefore  con 
tinue  it  hereafter. 


72  A    REVIEW    OF   THE 


IX. 

NORFOLK,  January  19,  1833. 

IF  the  author  of  this  Proclamation  had  asserted,  that  the  several 
States,  by  the  Federal  Constitution,  had  parted  with  much  of 
their  power,  jurisdiction  and  authority,  he  would  have  asserted  a 
fact,  that  no  one  ever  has  or  probably  ever  will  deny  ;  because,  it 
is  a  truth  obvious  to  all  who  read  that  Instrument.  The  only 
question  is,  do  the  powers  thereby  transferred  comprehend  Sover 
eignty  ?  If  they  do,  then  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
the  assignee  of  these  powers,  is  a  Sovereign.  But  if  they  do  not 
that  government  is  not  a  Sovereign  :  and  as  this  Constitution  does 

o  O 

not  profess  to  transfer  any  power,  jurisdiction  or  authority,  to  any 
other,  than  to  the  government  which  it  creates,  the  former  pos 
sessors  must  still  retain  their  Sovereignty,  this  Constitution,  non 
obstante. 

This  results  from  the  very  nature  of  this  Constitution,  that  all 
admit  to  be  a  grant  of  enumerated  powers ;  and  which,  therefore, 
cannot  convey  what  it  does  not  enumerate.  Even  what  lawyers 
would  call  implied  powers,  that  is  to  say,  such  as  are  not  granted 
in  terms,  but  are  necessary  to  give  effect  to  others  which  are  so 
granted,  strictly  speaking  do  not  exist  under  this  Constitution,  be 
cause,  all  such  powers  are  given  expressly  by  the  eev-ente&tfefi-  par 
agraph  of  the  eighth  section  of  its  first  article ;  and  of  course  are 
not  implied  powers.  Nothing  could  better  illustrate  the  excessive 
jealousy  that  dictated  the  instrument,  than  this  simple  feet:  or 
prove  more  conclusively,  that  the  sovereignty,  which  the  Procla 
mation  in  this  part  of  it,  concedes,  to  have  formerly  abided  in  the 
States,  could  not  pass  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  un 
der  this  Constitution.  Because,  Sovereignty  is  nowheie  therein 
granted  in  terms  ;  and  it  cannot  be  believed,  that  when  powers 
actually  " necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution'' 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  73 

other  powers  granted  expressly,  are  not  left  to  necessary  implica 
tion,  but  are  made  the  subjects  of  a  positive  grant,  that  sovereign 
ty,  the  greatest  of  all  human  powers,  would  be  left  to  mere  infer 
ence,  and  to  inference  too  from  the  grant  of  a  few  only  of  its 
many  incidents,  and  these  not  necessary  to  its  existence.  The 
shadow  may  follow  the  substance  by  which  it  is  caused,  but  that 
substance  can  never  follow  its  own  shadow,  except  when  hurried 
on  by  the  crazed  brain  of  a  madman. 

But  this  is  not  all.  Notwithstanding  it  was  conceded  on  all 
hands,  that  the  Federal  Constitution  was  but  a  errant  of  enurner- 

O 

ated  powers,  and  of  course  would  convey  only  what  it  enumerated, 
yet  such  was  the  jealousy  felt  by  the  States,  that  while  adopting 
it,  a  number  of  the  different  conventions  by  whom  it  was  ratified, 
to  guard  against  the  possible  misconstruction  and  abuse  of  the 
powers  therein  granted,  proposed  various  amendments  to  it.  In 
consequence  of  this,  the  very  first  Congress  which  assembled  un 
der  this  Constitution,  at  its  very  iirst  session,  acting  under  the  au 
thority  given  to  them  by  the  fifth  article,  proposed  these  amend 
ments  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States,  by  whom  ten  of 
them  were,  ratified,  in  the  mode  pointed  out  in  this  article.  These 
amendments  thereupon  became  "valid  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 
as  parts  of  this  Constitution."  Two  of  them,  the  Ninth  and  the 
Tenth,  are  in  the  following  words:  Ninth — The  enumeration  in 
the  Constitution,  of  certain  rights,  shall  not  be  construed  to  deny 
or  disparage  others  retained  by  the  People. 

Tenth — The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the 
Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to 
the  States  respectively,  or  to  the  People. 

Many  reflections  are  suggested  by  these  amendments,  which 
have  such  direct  bearing  upon  the  matter  I  am  now  examining, 
that  I  will  briefly  state  them.  The  first  is,  that  although  these 
amendments  appear  to  be  the  joint  work  of  Congress  and  of  the 
State  Legislatures  only,  yet  in  truth  and  in  fact,  they  proceed 
from  the  People  of  the  several  States.  They  were  suggested  by 
many  of  the  Conventions  of  the  People  who  adopted  the  Consti 
tution,  and  in  consequence  of  these  suggestions,  were  proposed  by 
the  first  Congress,  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States,  mere 
ly  to  satisfy  the  forms  of  the  Constitution,  and  to  give  effect  to 


74  A   REVIEW   OF   THE 

the  declared  will  of  many  of  the  States,  in  the  most  simple  and 
expeditions  mode  possible. 

Again,  these  amendments  are  not  donations,  but  reservations; 
exceptions  out  of  a  grant  already  made,  the  power  of  which  grant, 
if  not  accompanied  by  such  exceptions,  it  was  apprehended, 
might,  by  some  possibility,  influence  the  subjects  reserved.  The 
only  effect,  then,  which  such  reservations  can  have,  is  to  preserve 
to  the  former  possessors,  the  things  reserved,  and  in  their  former 
plight.  Moreover,  these  reservations  are  exceptions  out  of  a  grant 
of  political  powers:-  for  the  object  of  this  Constitution,  is  to  trans 
fer  such  powers  only.  But  if  so,  the  reservations  must  refer  to 
political  powers  also :  for  it  would  be  very  absurd,  to  save  and  re 
serve  any  thing  from  the  action  of  other  powers,  in  a  grant  that 
regards  political  powers  alone.  The  reservations  thus  made  by 
the  States,  in  a  grant  of  political  power  only,  are  exceptions  out 
of  such  a  grant,  made  by  them  to  a  corporate  body  created  by 
each  State  and  its  co-States,  which  body  is  styled  in  the  grant  it 
self  "  the  United  States." 

Even  this  is  not  all.  In  these  two  amendments,  a  marked  dis 
tinction  is  drawn  between  Rights  and  Powers.  The  former  are 
reserved  to  "  the  People"  only  ;  the  latter  "to  the  States  respect 
ively,  or  to  the  People."  The  reason  of  this  is  plain  ;  in  this  coun 
try  the  People  have  two  characters.  In  the  first,  they  are  regard 
ed  as  mere  individuals  and  subjects  enjoying  very  many  private 
rights :  some  of  which,  as  men,  they  derive  from  their  Creator, 
and  as  citizens  they  derive  others  from  the  very  nature  of  the  so 
ciety  of  which  they  claim  to  be  members.  In  the  second  charac 
ter,  they  are  regarded  as  the  sovereign  of  these  subjects.  In  this 
character  they  constitute  a  body  corporate  and  politic,  all  whose 
rights  (if  they  may  be  called  such)  are  corporate  rights:  and  there 
fore,  are  nothing  else  than  corporate  powers,  which,  when  apper 
taining  to  any  body,  that  is  not  only  a  body  corporate,  but  a  body 
politic  too,  at  once  become  political  powers.  The  People  as  in 
dividuals,  have  no  political  power,  although  they  have  many  sa 
cred  natural  and  civil  rights.  The  people  as  a  body  politic,  or 
commonwealth,  have  no  natural  rights,  although  they  have  vast 
political  power  which  they  acquire  either  by  their  own  force,  or 
by  their  own  consent.  Right  is  eternal ;  it  is  an  emanation  of 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  75 

Him  whose  Will  is  Right.  Political  power  is  of  human  creation  ; 
it  may  be  right  or  not,  according  to  the  source  from  and  the 
means  by  which  it  is  acquired.  If  such  power  is  seized  by  the 
strong  hand  of  brute  force,  it  is  confessedly,  power  merely.  If  it 
is  acquired  by  consent,  although  it  is  acquired  of  right,  it  is  not 
right  itself;  because,  the  withdrawal  of  that  consent,  would  make 
even  such  power  cease  to  be  right;  and  right  being  eternal,  can 
no  more  cease  to  be,  than  He  whose  will  it  is.  I  speak  not  now 
of  faith  and  truth,  or  of  the  obligations  which  they  impose.  I  will 
refer  to  these  hereafter.  My  present  purpose  is,  merely,  to  shew 
the  distinction  between  rights  and  political  powers,  which,  al 
though  like  sovereignty  and  governments,  sometimes  co-existing, 
and  frequently  confounded,  are  nevertheless  separable  and  distinct ; 
and  in  these  very  amendments  are  plainly  set  in  con tra-disti notion 
of  each  other.  Applying  these  several  remarks  to  these  amend 
ments  any  one  may  see  at  once,  the  object  and  supposed  necessi 
ty  of  the  first. 

The  People  of  the  several  States,  as  mere  individuals,  enjoyed 
many  rights,  none  of  which  had  the  States,  who  adopted  this  Con 
stitution,  any  thoughts  of  subjecting,  to  the  control  of  the  political 
powers  granted  to  the  government  they  had  thereby  created.  But 
as  some  of  these  rights  had  been  specially  enumerated  in  various 
parts  of  this  instrument,  and  then  saved  expressly  from  the  action 
of  the  powers  thereby  granted ;  and  as  the  expression  of  one 
thing,  is  often  regarded  as  the  exclusion  of  all  others  not  ex 
pressed,  therefore,  to  guard  against  such  effects  to  the  People,  in 
this  case,  the  ninth  amendment  provides,  that  "The  enumeration 
in  the  Constitution,  of  certain  rights,  shall  not  be  construed  to 
deny  or  disparage  others  retained  by  the  People."  Among  the 
rights  retained  by  the  People,  are  the  right  to  bear  arms  ;  the 
right  peaceably  to  assemble  and  consult  together ;  the  right  to 
petition  for  a  redress  of  their  grievances,  whether  real  or  imagin 
ary  only;  and  though  last,  not  least,  the  right  to  instruct  their 
own  Representatives,  whose  duty  it  is  to  observe  such  instruc 
tions,  notwithstanding  the  author  of  this  Proclamation  says,  that 
they  are  not  accountable  to  their  particular  constituents,  for  any 
act  done  by  them,  although  done  in  their  mere  Representative 
character. 


76  A   KEVIEW   OF   THE 

Nor  is  the  object,  and  supposed  necessity  of  the  second  amend 
ment,  less  apparent,  than  of  the  first.  Besides  the  right  which 
the  People  enjoyed  as  individuals,  the  same  people  associated 
and  hound  together  as  members  of  different  great  bodies  corpo 
rate  and  politic,  enjoyed  in  that  character,  many  political  powers, 
of  which  they  had  as  little  thought  of  depriving  themselves 
respectively,  by  their  several  ratifications  of  this  Constitution,  in 
this  their  corporate  character,  as  they  had  of  surrendering  all 
their  private  rights,  to  the  unbridled  action  of  the  other  political 
powers  thereby  created  and  assigned  to  the  new  government. 

But  as  the  enumeration  of  some  private  rights,  might  possibly 
be  considered  as  disparaging  others  not  enumerated,  so  the  enu 
meration  of  some  political  powers,  might  possibly  be  considered 
as  disparaging  others  not  enumerated,  especially  as  some  of  the 
enumerated  Political  powers  were  of  vast  extent,  such  as  the 
power  of  declaring  war,  of  making  Treaties,  and  over  all,  the 
necessary  and  proper  means  for  carrying  into  execution  these 
granted  powers.  Hence  the  Tenth  Amendment  provides,  that 
"  The  Powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States,  by  the  Consti 
tution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the 
States  respectively,  or  to  the  People." 

Here  let  me  remark,  that  the  idea  of  this  Amendment  is 
obviously  borrowed  from  the  second  of  the  old  Articles  of  Confed 
eration,  (to  which  I  have  formerly  referred)  the  form  of  the  ex 
pression  being  somewhat  varied,  in  order  to  make  it  more  ap 
propriate  to  the  new  government  of  the  United  States.  The 
Articles  of  Confederation  were  adopted  by  the  different  Legisla 
tures  of  the  several  States,  who  bj7  this  league  parted  with  none 
of  the  political  powers,  which  the}7  had  previously  possessed ; 
therefore,  their  reservation  was  made  to  enure  to  their  authors 
only,  the  States.  The  new  Constitution  however,  was  ratified 
by  the  People  themselves  acting  by  their  delegates  assembled  in 
Conventions  called  for  that  special  purpose ;  and  by  its  provisions, 
it  transferred  many  of  the  powers  that  the  State  government  had 
formerly  enjoyed  exclusively. — Hence  a  different  form  of  exprcs 
sion  was  necessary ;  and  in.  that  which  I  have  quoted,  words  of 
such  broad  signification  are  employed  as  are  sufficient  to  cover 
all  political  power,  then  existing  ungranted  to  the  United  States, 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  77 

whether  abiding  with  the  State  governments,  or  with  the  People 
of  the  several  States  in  their  high  corporate  character. 

There  existed  strong  necessity,  too,  for  the  employment  of  the 
very  words  used  in  this  reservation,  supposing  its  object  to  have 
been  like  that  of  the  second  article  of  the  old  Confederation,  to 
except  out  of  the  grant  all  powers  not  conveyed  by  it,  and  this 
in  favor  of  the  respective  possessors  of  such  powers.  Whoever 
will  take  the  trouble  to  read  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  with  attention,  will  find  that  it  uses  the  term  state  in 
many  different  senses.  Sometimes  it  is  used  to  signify  the  terri 
tory,  as  when  the  Constitution  says,  u  The  citizens  of  each  State, 
shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in 
the  several  States."  Sometimes  it  is  used  to  denote  the  govern 
ments  existing  in  such  territory,  as  when  it  says.  "  ~No  State  shall 
pass  any  bill  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  law,  or  law  impairing  the 
obligation  of  contracts."  Sometimes  it  means,  the  People  of 
the  Territory  assembled  by  their  representatives,  not  for  the  gen 
eral  purposes  of  government,  but  for  some  different,  and  special 
purpose  only ;  as  when  it  declares,  that  u  The  ratification  of  the 
Conventions  of  nine  States  shall  be  sufficient  for  the  establishment 
of  this  Constitution  between  the  States  so  ratifying  the  same." 
And  lastly,  it  is  used  to  denote  the  unassembled  People  of  any 
territory  called  a  State,  in  their  high  corporate  sovereign  character, 
which  they  choose  to  assume  when  they  agree  to  form, — conven 
tions,  to  make  or  to  alter  government,  or  to  do  any  other  act,  sur 
passing  the  legitimate  powers  of  ordinary  human  institutions. 
In  this  last  sense  it  is  used  in  the  Constitution,  whenever  that  In 
strument  speaks  of  "  The  United  States,"  meaning  thereby  the 
confederation  of  these  distinct  masses,  who  have  mutually  pledged 
their  faith  to  each  other,  that  they  will  severally  uphold  and  sup 
port  this  Constitution,  by  all  their  means,  moral  and  physical. 

The  term  States  being  used  in  the  Constitution  itself  in  these 
various  senses,  it  was  not  only  proper,  but  necessary  also,  that  the 
reservation  should  be  co-extensive  with  the  grant,  and  should 
employ  its  own  words.  But  lest  some  doubts  might  arise  as  to  the 
precise  meaning  of  these,  the  amendment  adds  others  still  more 
comprehensive  in  signification,  and  of  more  general  use. 

In  this  respect  at  least  the  amendments  differ  from  the  Procla- 


78  A   REVIEW   OF  THE 

mation.  Tl;ey  deal  in  no  ambiguities  or  double  entendres.  They 
exhaust  enumeration,  and  when  they  have  done  so,  they  compre 
hend  any  and  every  possible  residuum,  by  general  words.  All 
the  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States,  by  the  Constitu 
tion,  or  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States 
respectively  or  to  the  People.  They  could  not  define  sovereignty, 
for  none  can  do  so.  It  comprehends  not  only  all  political  power, 
that  ever  has  been  granted,  but  all  that  ever  can  be  granted.  I 
certainly  mean  no  irreverence,  when  speaking  of  human  sover 
eignty  I  say  it  is  the  one  "I  am,"  which  in  this  sublime  annuncia 
tion  of  its  own  existence,  assumes  to  itself  every  possible  political 
power,  and  every  possible  political  attribute,  which  belongs  to 
human  omnipotence,  whether  the  same  has  been  called  into 
action  or  not.  Yain  would  be  all  reservations,  if  the  grant  con 
veyed  any  power  like  this,  since  it  would  authorize  the  grantee,  to 
annul  the  reservation,  the  moment  it  was  adopted.  No  man,  it  is 
believed,  can  suppose  that  the  Constitution  ever  designed  to  trans 
fer  any  such  authority  as  this,  to  the  government  it  creates,  which 
therefore,  cannot  be  a  sovereign.  Nor  can  the  "Nation"  whose 
existence  is  imagined  in  the  Proclamation,  claim  any  thing  under 
this  grant :  for  it  is  neither  made  to,  or  by  this  Nation  ;  and  if 
it  had  been,  provided  the  name  of  this  Nation  is  the  "  United 
States,"  it  is  from  their  grasp,  the  last  Amendment  expressly  de 
clares  the  ungranted  powers  to  be  reserved. 

Then  tell  me  ye  casuists  of  any  school,  if  you  can,  what  is  there 
to  which  this  reservation  of  political  power  can  apply,  but  sover 
eignty,  including  as  that  necessarily  does,  freedom  and  independ 
ence?  Tell  me,  likewise,  if  you  can,  in  whose  favor  this  reserva 
tion  exists,  if  not  in  favor  of  the  People  of  the  several  States  in 
their  high  character  of  a  body  corporate  and  politic,  who  possessed 
this  sovereignty,  when  this  Constitution  was  adopted  by  them  in 
that  character  ?  You  cannot  say,  that  it  applies  to  any  enumer 
ated  right;  for  all  these  are  reserved  by  the  preceding  Amend 
ment. — You  cannot  say,  that  it  applies  to  any  other  political  pow 
er  ungranted  by  this  Constitution,  and  which  had  been  previously 
granted  to  the  State  governments:  for  all  such,  if  not  prohibited 
to  these  governments  by  this  Constitution,  and  so  cancelled  and 
annulled,  are  the  subjects  of  the  former  part  of  this  reservation  it- 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  79 

self.  And  if  you  say,  that  it  applies  to  the  political  powers  neither 
granted  to  the  Federal  or  State  governments,  you  describe  sov 
ereignty  itself,  the  living  source  of  all  political  power,  from 
whence  it  all  emanates,  and  with  which,  when  ungranted,  it  al 
ways  abides. — Then,  if  sovereignty  and  sovereignty  only,  is  the 
subject  of  this  reservation,  in  whose  favor  does  the  reservation  act  ? 
It  cannot  act  in  favor  of  the  Federal  government :  for  it  is  re 
served  oat  of  the  very  grant  of  powers  made  to  it.  It  cannot  act 
in  favor  of  the  United  States  as  a  supposed  nation  or  body  politic  ; 
for  its  very  words  declare  it  to  be  made  as  an  exception  out  of 
any  powers  delegated  "  to  the  United  States."  The  State  govern 
ments  never  had  it,  and  therefore  it  could  not  be  reserved  to 
them.  It  most  then  abide  with  its  former  possessors  the  States 
or  Commonwealths  themselves,  unless  it  is  in  nubibus  •  and  once 
put  their  Sovereignty  in  abeyance,  and  States  are  no  more. 

I  have  now,  I  trust,  defended  successfully  the  Sovereignty  of 
the  States,  against  all  the  attacks  made  upon  it  by  the  author  of 
this  Proclamation,  whether  his  approaches  were  made  in  secret 
mines  or  in  open  trenches.; 

I  have  proved,  at  least  I  think  I  have,  that  the  States  were  in 
dependent  in  fact,  before  they  declared  themselves  so  in  their 
declaration  of  Independence,  which  instrument  was  intended  for 
others,  and  not  for  themselves. 

That  the  necessities  of  the  country  after  their  Independence 
was  declared,  which  had  induced  their  previous  association  and 
union,  invited,  nay  compelled  the  adoption  of  a  general  govern 
ment  of  very  limited  powers,  which  was  established  by  the  Arti 
cles  of  Confederation,  by  which  Articles  the  States  expressly  re 
tained  their  Sovereignty. 

That  the  defects  of  this  Government,  (which  were  probably  as- 
cribable  to  other  causes  than  its  own  inherent  vice,)  afterwards 
induced  the  adoption  of  the  present  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  which  so  far  from  creating  a  government  with  the  powers 
of  Sovereignty,  recognized  in  various  ways,  the  pre-existing  and 
continuing  sovereignty  of  the  several  States,  its  sole  creators  and 
sole  preservers.- — I  have  repelled  with  honest,  though  perhaps  in 
discreet  indignation,  the  attempt  made  to  tamper  with  the  faith 
and  truth  of  the  State  and  its  citizens,  in  the  rash  assertion  that 


80  A   REVIEW   OF   THE 

their  allegiance  was  transferred  to  another.  I  have  denied  the 
doctrine  that  Representatives  were  not  bound  by  the  instructions 
of  their  constituents,  and  that  every  government  must  be  Sover 
eign,  which  possesses  the  power  to  punish  Treason.  By  all  these 
means,  and  by  others,  I  have  sought  to  establish  the  continuous 
freedom  and  independence  of  these  States,  who  therefore,  although 
bound  by  a  holy  bond  of  Union,  which  none  ought  to  violate,  are 
nevertheless  Sovereigns. 

What  may  be  the  effects  of  this  Sovereignty,  in  regard  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  I  will  next  examine.  But  here 
let  me  warn  my  readers,  that  if  any  still  believe,  that  they  owe  no 
allegiance  to  their  State,  that  their  Representatives  are  not  ac 
countable  to  them,  that  every  government  which  possesses  the 
power  to  punish  Treason  is  a  Sovereign,  or  that  by  these  or  any 
other  means  the  several  sovereign  States  have  become  "  a  single 
Nation,"  they  will  but  waste  time  in  perusing  what  I  may  here 
after  write,  since  it  will  all  proceed  upon  the  assumption  of  the 
negative  of  all  these  propositions. 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  81 


X. 

NORFOLK,  January  21,  1833. 

ALTHOUGH  I  have  contended,  that  the  several  States  which 
compose  this  Union,  are  Free,  Sovereign  and  Independent,  yet  let 
no  one  suppose,  even  for  an  instant,  that  in  asserting  their  su 
premacy,  I  mean  to  deduce  from  thence,  their  emancipation  from 
any  obligation.  A  State  must  be  constituted  by  rational  and  ac 
countable  beings ;  and  although  but  an  ideal  creation,  yet  as  it 
can  only  think  and  act  through  its  members,  it  must  bear  their 
character. 

It  so  becomes  a  moral  and  accountable  being  itself,  bound  by 
every  moral  obligation  which  attaches  to  man  as  an  individual; 
and  even  in  a  higher  degree. 

I  certainly  do  not  concur  with  the  learned  author  of  this  Proc 
lamation,  in  the  new  precepts  of  ethics  or  of  public  law  which  he 
announces  therein,  when  he  says,  ua  binding  obligation  that  has 
no  sanction,  may  be  broken  with  no  other  consequence  than  moral 
guilt," — or  when  he  infers  from  that  postulate,  that  as  "  a  league 
between  independent  Nations,  generally,  has  no  sanction  other 
than  a  moral -one ;  or  if  it  should  contain  a  penalty,  as  there  is  no 
common  superior,  it  cannot  be  enforced."  My  error  (if  it  is  one) 
proceeds  probably,  from  my  utter  incapacity  to  comprehend  what 
is  meant  by  moral  guilt,  or  by  a  moral  sanction.  To  my  dull  ap 
prehension,  moral  guilt  appears  very  like  a  true  falsehood,  and  by 
moral  sanction  I  must  believe  is  meant  physical  morality.  I 
doubt  not,  however,  that  all  those  who  can  understand  what  this 
State  paper  means,  when  it  speaks  of  "  aggregate  character,"  or 
of  "a  nation  for  certain  purposes,"  will  as  easily  discover  what  it 
intends  by  moral  guilt  and  moral  sanction. 

Nay,  as  formerly,  we  have  been  taught  to  understand  the  pos 
sibility  of  a  constructive  journey,  and  of  moral  Treason,,  we  may 
6 


A    REVIEW    OF   THE 

expect  to  hear  in  some  commentary  upon  this  pandect,  of  con 
structive  and  so  unaccountable  Representatives,  and  of  the  trans 
fer  of  moral  allegiance. 

According  to  my  old-fashioned  notions  of  morals  and  of  law, 
there  is  no  human  obligation  without  a  sanction,  whether  such  ob 
ligations  attach  to  individuals  or  to  States :  nor  does  the  existence 
of  the  sanction,  depend  upon  the  existence  of  any  common  supe 
rior  to  enforce  it.  To  me  it  seems  a  solecism,  to  speak  of  obliga 
tions  that  do  not  oblige ;  and  that  which  obliges  the  observance 
of  an  obligation,  is  its  sanction,  be  that  what  it  may.  Nor  would 
it  be  less  a  solecism,  to  suppose  that  the  sanction  of  any  human 
obligation,  was  to  be  found  in  the  precepts  of  morality  only:  for 
as  these  precepts  constitute  mere  obligations  themselves,  one  obli 
gation  would  so  become  the  sanction  of  another.  In  such  a  case, 
it  might  probably  puzzle  the  acumen  even  of  those  who  can  com 
prehend  the  theory  of  moral  guilt,  to  decide  which  was  the  obli 
gation  and  which  the  sanction.  And  if  the  existence  of  some 
common  superior,  was  necessary  to  give  validity  to  sanctions,  the 
obligations  contracted  by  States,  could  never  be  rightfully  en 
forced  by  other  States,  so  long  as  the  equality  of  States  is  con 
ceded.  Yet.  no  man  before  this  author,  has  ever  doubted  the  exist 
ence  of  such  a  right. 

It  would  be  foreign  to  my  present  purpose,  to  enquire,  what  is 
the  sanction  of  national  obligations,  or  by  whom,  or  how,  or  when, 
these  may  be  applied  and  enforced. 

I  may,  perhaps,  recur  to  this  subject  hereafter.  At  present,  it 
will  be  only  necessary  to  say  that  it  is  not  morality  merely,  but 
the  law,  that  gives  the  sanction  of  all  human  obligations  which 
deserve  that  name.  This  law  must  be  administered  by  human 
agents,  who  can  employ  none  other  than  human  means. — In  the 
case  of  individuals  it  is  the  municipal  law  of  their  country,  which 
gives  the  sanction  of  all  their  perfect  obligations.  This  law  is  ad 
ministered  by  magistrates  only:  but  its  sanctions,  although  de 
clared  by  them  alone,  must  be  enforced  when  necessary,  by  the 
power  of  mere  men.  In  the  case  of  States,  it  is  the  public  law  of 
the  civilized  world  which  gives  the  sanction  of  the  obligations  of 
Nations.  This  law  is  administered  by  States  alone  ;  and  the  sanc 
tions  declared  by  it,  must  be  applied  and  enforced,  when  neces- 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  83 

sary,  by  the  physical  power  of  their  subjects,  who,  as  in  the  former 
case,  are  mere  men.  Thus  it  occurs,  that  in  all  cases,  the  preser 
vation  of  human  Rights,  must  be  entrusted  to  the  hands  of  human 
power.  But  until  this  guardian  becomes  his  own  ward,  power 
and  right  will  not  be  confounded,  any  more  than  the  obligation 
with  its  sanction,  or  either  with  the  physical  force,  that  may  pos- 
sibrj7'  become  necessary  to  apply  the  one  or  to  enforce  the  other. 

If  a  State  as  a  moral  being  may  contract  an  obligation,  as  an 
accountable  being  it  is  obliged  to  keep  its  faith,  and  to  observe 
the  promise  it  has  given.  Should  it  refuse  to  do  so,  it  incurs  the 
guilt  of  violated  faith,  and  renders  itself  amenable  to  the  punish 
ment  of  such  guilt,  which  may  then  be  rightfully  inflicted  upon  it. 

By  whom,  or  when,  or  how,  I  will  hereafter  enquire.  Whether 
this  sanction  prove  efficacious  or  not  as  a  sanction,  cannot  alter 
either  the  guilt  or  the  right.  The  unknown  or  fugitive  malefac 
tor,  who  so  escapes  "unwhipt  of  Justice,"  cannot  thus  convert  his 
crime  into  what  this  author  would  perhaps  call  moral  guilt:  nor 
must  the  powerful  subject,  who  successfully  resists  the  lawful 
commands  of  his  Sovereign,  and  so  prevents  their  execution,  nat 
ter  himself  with  the  hope,  that  he  is  but  a  moral  traitor.  The 
name  of  the  State  which  violates  its  faith  becomes  the  by-word  of 
the  civilized  world.  The  decree  delenda  est  Carthago  will  be  ut 
tered  by  that  world ;  and  while  nations  are  but  the  Yice-gerents 
of  Him,  who  delights  in  Justice,  this  decree  must  be  executed, — 
not  perhaps  in  the  first,  nor  yet  in  the  second  Punic  War,  but 
Carthage  must  fall,  and  fall  by  human  means  too,  for  Carthage 
was  faithless. 

With  this  solemn  truth  deeply  impressed  upon  my  heart,  and 
with  this  awful  example  full  in  my  recollection,  I  will  proceed 
briefly  to  enquire,  whether  the  Sovereign  States  who  compose  this 
Union,  have  pledged  their  faith  in  regard  to  it,  by  the  Federal 
Constitution :  to  whom  that  pledge  was  given  :  what  was  the  ob 
ject  and  extent  of  the  pledge :  by  whom  and  how  it  may  be  vio 
lated  :  and  what  are  the  legitimate  effects  of  such  a  violation.  I 
will  not  argue  the  first  question.  It  would  be  an  insult  to  every 
American,  to  suppose  that  he  ever  had  doubted,  or  could  now 
doubt,  upon  this  subject.  We  all  admit,  that  the  States,  by  their 
several  ratifications  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 


84  A    REVIEW    OF   THE 

pledged  their  faith,  and  severally  promised  "that  it  should  be 
binding  upon  their  people." 

To  whom  was  this  pledge  given  ?  It  could  not  possibly  have 
been  given  to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  This  did  not 
exist  when  these  ratifications  were  had :  and  the  very  object  of 
the  ratifications  was  to  create  it,  to  preserve  it,  and  to  amend  it, 
when  the  Sovereign  parties  saw  fit  to  do  so. 

The  Pledge  was  given  by  each  State  to  its  co-States ;  was  given 
and  received  to  and  by  each  mutually  and  reciprocally ;  the 
pledge  of  one  being  the  consideration  of  the  pledge  of  another. 
These  mutual  and  reciprocal  pledges  constituted  a  valid  contract 
between  them  all,  which,  whether  it  may  be  more  properly  called 
a  a  league  " — "  a  compact " — or  "  an  agreement " — I  willingly 
leave  to  the  learned  author  of  this  Proclamation  to  decide.  Nor 
is  it  of  the  slightest  importance  to  my  present  purpose,  to  enquire, 
whether  a  Covenant  made  by  a  State,  with  its  co-States,  having 
for  its  object  the  establishment  of  government,  is  more  or  less  sol 
emn,  than  if  the  object  of  the  Covenant  had  been  to  establish  an 
Alliance,  or  to  do  any  other  act.  If  it  be  a  Covenant  at  all,  I  ad 
mit,  that  the  faith  of  the  contracting  Sovereign  parties  is  mutual 
ly  pledged  to  observe  it ;  and  whatever  may  be  the  form,  or 
whatever  the  object  of  their  covenant,  Fides  servanda  est.  ~No 
one  can  reasonably  ask  more,  nor  am  I  disposed  to  concede 
less  than  this, — all  for  which  I  contend,  is,  that  the  promise 
was  made  by  every  ratifying  State,  to  its  co-States,  and  by  no 
possibility  could  have  been  made  to  a  mere  potential  government, 
which,  at  the  time  of  the  promise  made,  had  not,  and  by  possibil 
ity  never  might  have  had,  any  actual  existence.  If  this  is  so,  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  is  a  covenant  between  the  sev 
eral  sovereign  States,  by  whom  it  was  ratified,  to  which  covenant 
the  government  thereby  created,  is  not,  nor  by  any  possibility 
could  be  a  party. 

To  ascertain  what  was  the  object  and  extent  of  the  pledge,  we 
must  look  into  the  instrument  itself  to  which  the  ratifications  of 
the  several  sovereigns  refer.  We  shall  there  find,  that  to  attain 
certain  great  and  enumerated  objects,  a  government  was  to  be  or 
dained  and  established,  endowed  with  certain  enumerated  powers, 
for  the  attainment  of  the  enumerated  objects.  Therefore,  the 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  85 

faith  of  the  parties  was  pledged,  each  to  the  other ;  to  create  such 
a  government,  endowed  with  such  powers,  to  be  exerted  for  such 
purposes — to  continue  and  maintain  this  government,  in  the  free 
exercise  of  all  these  powers,  while  exerted  for  these  objects — and 
so  to  support  this  Constitution.  Further  than  this,  it  is  confident 
ly  believed,  that  no  one,  at  this  day,  can  suppose  the  faith  of  the 
sovereign  parties  was  ever  pledged. 

So  far  the  way  is  smooth.  But  when  it  is  asked,  how  and  by 
whom  the  faith  plighted  by  the  high  contracting  parties,  in  their 
several  ratifications  of  this  their  covenant,  may  be  violated  ?  The 
answer  seems,  at  the  first  view  of  the  question,  to  be  not  so  easy. 
Yet  there  is  no  real  difficulty  in  the  way  ;  provided  our  first  ap 
proaches  to  it  are  all  true  and  sustained  ;  for  this  answer  will  be 
found  but  a  corollary  from  the  former  conclusions. 

Thus  when  it  is  asked,  how  this  covenant  may  be  violated  2 
The  general  answer,  is  obviously  this :  It  may  be  violated,  by  the 
refusal  or  neglect  of  any  of  the  parties,  to  do  any  of  the  several 
acts,  which  they  have  respectively  stipulated,  in  the  covenant,  that 
they  would  do  :  or  by  their  doing  any  of  the  several  acts,  which 
they  have  respectively  stipulated,  in  the  covenant,  that  they 
would  not  do :  and  it  cannot  be  violated  by  them  in  any  other 
mode.  For,  while  all  the  parties  do  and  forbear  to  do,  all  that  by 
the  covenant  they  have  promised  to  do  and  to  forbear  from  do 
ing,  the  performance  is  co-extensive  with  the  promise,  the  latter 
is  so  fully  satisfied,  et  Fides  servata  est. 

So,  too,  when  it  is  asked,  by  whom  may  this  covenant  be  vio 
lated  ?  The  answer  is,  by  some  of  the  parties  to  it  only.  If  all 
agree  to  disregard  it,  this  is  no  violation,  1:>ut  a  mere  justifiable 
change  or  avoidance  of  the  covenant,  by  the  parties  who  made  it, 
and  who  may  at  any  time  alter  or  abolish  it  at  their  will. — Nor  is  it 
of  the  slightest  consequence,  when  the  parties  all  concur,  whether 
the  change  or  avoidance  of  the  covenant  is  effected  in  the  mode 
therein  prescribed  or  not.  For,  no  one  of  its  parts  is  more  obliga 
tory  upon  the  faith  of  the  parties,  than  any  other;  and  they  have 
the  same  right  (all  agreeing)  to  abrogate  the  part  prescribing  the 
mode  in  which  alone  it  may  be  amended,  as  to  change  any  other 
part  of  the  instrument. 

The  whole  is  but  a  promise  made  by  each  to  all ;    and  all  can 


86  A   REVIEW    OF   THE 

as  rightfully  annul  the  promise  of  each,  made  to  themselves,  as 
any  individual  may  cancel  at  his  pleasure,  a  promise  made  to 
himself. — Neither  is  it  possible,  for  any  other  than  a  party,  to  vio 
late  any  covenant.  For  if  this  was  possible,  the  faith  of  parties 
would  not  depend  upon  their  own  will  and  ability,  but  upon  the 
will  of  others,  over  whom  they  may  have  no  control ;  and  so  faith 
never  could  be  kept. 

Strangers,  not  parties  to  a  covenant,  may  by  their  acts,  prevent 
the  parties  from  fulfilling  its  obligations  upon  them  :  but  such 
acts  of  strangers,  constitute  no  violation  of  these  obligations,  for 
none  can  violate  it,  but  such  as  the  obligation  obliges ;  and  it  is 
absurd  to  suppose,  that  it  can  oblige  any  others,  than  the  parties, 
who  voluntarily  agreed  that  they  would  be  bound  by  it.  Then, 
the  covenant  entered  into  by  each  of  these  States  with  its  co- 
States,  can  be  violated  by  none  but  the  sovereign  parties  to  that 
covenant.  If  this  was  not  so,  the  peace  of  Nations  and  the  faith 
of  States,  would  hang  upon  the  will  of  every  incendiary  ruffian, 
who  lives  as  the  disgrace  of  the  community  of  winch  he  may  be 
an  unworthy  member. 

Here  it  may  be  asked,  may  not  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  any  State,  or  of  any  Department  of  either  of  these 
governments,  nay,  may  not  any  mere  individual  violate  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  ?  Doubtless,  each  of  them  may  do 
so ;  and  in  so  doing,  would  be  guilty  of  a  very  wicked  act,  which, 
generally,  would  draw  down  upon  the  agent  or  agents,  the  conse 
quences  of  a  sanction,  they  might  then  probably  discover  wTas  not 
a  mere  "  moral  sanction,"  although  the  act  might  be  done,  even 
by  this  would-be  Sovereign,  the  government  of  the  United  States 
itself,  which,  if  a  Sovereign,  could  acknowledge  no  superior.  But 
a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  whether  per 
petrated  by  their  government,  or  by  anybody  else  except  a  Sover 
eign  State,  is  not,  of  itself,  any  "breach  of  the  covenant  for  the 
observance  of  which  the  faith  of  the  high  contracting  parties  to 
that  Covenant  is  mutually  pledged  to  each  other;  and  this  for  the 
reason  before  given,  that  none  but  the  parties  can  violate  a  cove 
nant  ;  and  that  neither  the  government,  nor  any  individual,  is  a 
party  to  that  Covenant.  When  the  Spanish  Intendant  at  New 
Orleans,  in  contravention  of  the  22d  Article  of  our  Treaty  with 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  87 

Spain,  deprived  the  Citizens  of  the  United  States  of  the  right  of 
deposite  in  the  port  of  that  City,  this  was  no  breach  of  the  faith 
of  Spain  ;  because  when  she  was  informed  of  the  act  done  by  her 
officer  under  color  of  her  authority,  she  disavowed  it  as  having 
been  done  in  virtue  of  any  such  authority  given  by  her.  So,  too, 
when  upon  a  more  recent  occasion,  a  military  officer  of  the  United 
States,  acting  in  contravention  of  many  of  the  Articles  of  the 
same  Treaty  with  Spain,  entered  her  territory  with  the  armed 
force  under  his  command,  seized  upon  her  fortresses,  slaughtered 
her  subjects,  and  annulled  her  Sovereign  powers ;  even  this  act 
constituted  no  breach  of  faith  of  the  United  States. 

Because,  they  too,  when  informed  of  these  acts,  done  by  their 
officer,  under  color  of  their  authority,  disavowed  them  all,  as  hav 
ing  been  done  by  him  in  pursuance  of  any  power  given  by  them 
to  him  for  these  purposes. 

In  either  case,  the  misdeeds  of  these  agents,  although  not 
breaches  of  the  plighted  faith  of  their  respective  Sovereigns,  be 
cause  unauthorized  and  disavowed  by  them,  yet  being  done  under 
color  of  their  authority,  bound  these  Sovereigns  severally,  to  make 
reparation  and  compensation  for  the  wrongs  and  injuries  suffered  ; 
and  in  either  case,  such  reparation  and  compensation  was  de 
manded  and  given. 

Although  it  is  true,  that  the  covenant  formed  between  any 
State  and  its  co- States,  cannot  be  violated  by  any  other  than  by 
some  of  the  sovereign  parties  to  that  Covenant,  so  as  to  make  the 
violation  of  it  a  breach  of  their  pledged  faith,  }Tet  while  man  has 
free  will,  he  may  and  often  does  commit  wrongs,  and  crimes,  and 
sins,  which  may  threaten  a  breach  of  his  Sovereign's  faith. 

To  prevent  this,  every  person,  whether  natural  or  Corporate,  in 
every  country,  unless  he  be  a  bandit,  or  an  outlaw,  is  forced  to 
become  the  subject  of  some  Sovereign,  who  in  exchange  for  the 
protection  it  is  bound  to  afford,  and  the  responsibility  it  is  com 
pelled  to  bear  for  the  acts  of  its  subjects,  is  entitled  to  their  obe 
dience  and  allegiance.  Hence,  all  in  this  country  are  the  subjects 
of  some  Sovereign  State,  or  amenable  to  the  authority  of  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  which  government  is  itself  amena 
ble  to  the  authority  of  the  Sovereign  States,  its  creators  and  pre 
servers,  and  who  whenever  they  may  see  fit,  can  rightfully  become 
its  destroyers. 


A   EEVIEW   OF   THE 

If,  then,  that  government,  or  these  States,  are  notified  of  an  act 
done  in  violation  of  the  covenant  which  the  States  have  all  pledged 
their  faith  to  support  and  preserve,  by  any  of  those  dependent  upon 
their  authority,  it  is  their  sacred  and  solemn  duty,  to  disavow  the 
act  done  as  having  been  done  in  virtue  of  their  authority,  to  take  ef 
fectual  steps  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  such  an  abuse,  and  if  it 
may  be  properly  required,  to  make  reparation  for  any  injuries 
that  may  have  been  sustained  from  what  has  been  done  under 
color  of  their  power.  If  any  State  when  so  notified  and  appealed 
to,  refuses  or  neglects  to  do  these  things,  it  thereby  adopts  the  act 
done  as  its  own  act,  and  assumes  upon  itself  all  the  consequences. 

In  a  country  regulated  as  are  the  United  States,  the  necessity 
for  such  a  solemn  appeal  from  one  sovereign  State  to  its  co-States, 
must  be  very  rare  indeed.  The  acute  moral  sense  of  our  people, 
the  vigor  of  our  laws,  the  division  of  our  powers,  the  accountabil 
ity  of  all  our  magistrates,  the  policy  of  our  governments,  whether 
Federal  or  State,  all  constitute  so  many  different  checks  and  pre 
ventives  against  the  occurrence  of  any  event  that  could  justify  or 
require  any  such  step.  It  is  possible,  however,  nay  has  actually 
occurred  more  than  once ;  and  therefore,  while  treating  of  the 
mere  theory  of  this  our  government,  which  theory,  although  ex 
posed  to  very  many  practical  objections  (applicable  not  to  the  gov 
ernment,  but  to  its  administration),  is  more  perfect  than  anything 
the  wit  of  man  has  ever  produced,  I  must  pursue  it  to  all  its  con 
sequences.  I  am  so  led  to  the  enquiry,  what  may  rightfully  take 
place,  should  any  State,  after  notifying  its  co-States  of  a  violation  of 
the  covenant  perpetrated  by  any  of  those  who  are  amenable  to  their 
authority,  meet  from  them  with  a  refusal  to  redress  the  evil  com 
plained  of,  or  should  see  this  their  solemn  appeal  treated  with  neglect. 

The  first  consequence  is  obvious,  every  State  so  refusing  or 
neglecting,  thereby  adopts  the  act  or  omission  complained  of  by 
its  co-State,  as  its  own  act.  It  affirms  thereby,  that  the  act  or 
omission  done,  or  suffered  by  its  agents,  or  subjects,  has  been 
done  either  by  its  order,  under  its  permission,  or  with  its  appro 
bation  ;  and  that  it  is  willing  to  take  upon  itself  all  the  legit 
imate  effects  of  the  act  or  omission,  be  these  what  they  may. 

What  then  is  the  next  consequence  ?  the  high  and  solemn 
importance  of  this  question,  is  a  sufficient  apology  for  me  in  post 
poning  its  examination  to  another  number. 


PEOCLAMATION  OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  89 


XL 

NORFOLK,  January  23,  1833. 

IN  my  last  number,  I  endeavored  to  prove,  that  by  their  several 
ratifications  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  Sover 
eign  States  of  the  Union  thereby  established,  entered  into  a 
covenant  with  each  other,  to  support  this  Constitution — that  for 
the  observance  of  this  covenant,  each  State  pledged  its  faith  to  its 
co-States  ;  and  that  this  faith  must  be  kept  by  all.  I  endeavored 
to  prove  further,  that  none  could  violate  the  faith  plighted  by 
this  covenant,  save  some  of  the  Sovereign  parties  to  it ;  but  that 
they  might  do  so,  either  directly,  by  their  own  acts  or  omissions, 
or  indirectly,  by  adopting  as  their  own  the  acts  or  omissions  of 
any  others  over  whom  they  might  lawfully  exercise  control.  I 
am  tli us  brought  to  enquire,  what  is  the  course  that  may  be  right 
fully  pursued  by  any  State,  should  its  co-States  break  their  faith 
pledged  to  it,  by  doing  directly  any  act  in  violation  of  that 
pledge,  or  by  adopting  as  theirs,  any  such  act  done  by  others 
amenable  to  their  authority  ? 

I  present  the  question  in  this  abstract  form,  purposely ;  be 
cause,  1  wish  to  avoid,  for  the  present,  the  investigation  of  any 
other  matter  not  necessarily  involved  in  the  enquiry  immediately 
before  me. 

Hence,  instead  of  stopping  to  examine,  whether  any  particular 
act  is  or  is  not  a  violation  of  the  Constitution — or  what  is  or  is 
not  the  adoption  by  a  State  of  such  an  act,  when  not  done  directly 
by  itself — or  whether  the  agents  by  whom  the  act  has  been  per 
petrated  are  or  are  not  under  its  control. — 1  have  assumed,  that 
the  act  done  is  a  violation  of  the  Constitution — that  it  is  done  by 
a  State  directly,  or  when  done  by  some  other,  is  adopted  by  it  as 
its  own  act — and  that  the  act  adopted  as  its  own  act,  is  done 
by  such  as  are  amenable  to  its  authority.  Thus  the  question 


90  A   KEVIEW   OF   THE 

of  mere  right  comes  naked  before  us,  and  so  presented  must  have 
a  direct  answer. 

As  to  the  general  answer  to  this  question,  I  had  supposed, 
until  recently,  that  no  man  could  doubt.  But  as  opinions  upon 
this  subject  very  different  from  mine,  have  been  uttered  of  late, 
and  from  many  and  high  authorities  too,  although  my  former 
confidence  in  my  own  opinions  is  in  no  degree  shaken,  yet  I  feel 
compelled  while  reasserting  them,  to  endeavor  to  establish  them 
by  arguments,  which,  but  a  few  weeks  since,  I  should  have 
thought  as  unnecessary  as  the  attempt  to  prove  any  axiomatic 
truth, — in  the  case  of  mere  individuals,  if  a  contract  is  made  be 
tween  them,  wherein  the  performance  of  one  party,  is  the  consid 
eration  for  the  performance  of  the  other.  No  lawyer,  no  man, 
can  doubt,  that  if  one  of  the  parties  does  not  comply  with  such 
a  contract,  he  has  no  shadow  of  right  to  ask  or  to  expect  the 
observance  of  it  by  the  other  party.  The  failure  to  comply  by 
either,  leaves  to  the  other  party,  the  privilege  of  avoiding  and 
vacating  the  Contract  altogether,  or  of  tendering  performance  on 
his  part,  claiming  a  compliance  from  the  other  party,  and  if  that 
is  then  refused,  of  demanding  compensation  for  any  injury  sus 
tained  by  a  breach  of  the  agreement. 

So  too  in  the  case  of  Nations  absolutely  independent  of  each 
other,  if  a  contract  be  entered  into  by  them,  the  failure  to  comply 
with  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  contract,  on  the  part  of  either 
of  the  high  contracting  parties,  leaves  the  other  at  liberty,  to 
vacate  and  annul  the  whole  contract  as  to  itself;  or  while  affirm 
ing  a  readiness  on  its  part  to  continue  its  observance  of  the 
obligations,  to  require  of  the  other  party  a  like  compliance. 

In  illustration  of  this  doctrine,  I  need  but  refer  to  our  own 
practice  and  to  our  own  avowed  principles.  The  act  of  July  7th, 
1798,  declared  "  That  the  United  States  are  of  right  freed  and 
exonerated  from  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaties,  and  of  the  con 
sular  convention,  heretofore  concluded  between  the  United  States 
and  France :  and  that  the  same  shall  not  henceforth  be  regarded 
as  legally  obligatory  upon  the  government  or  citizens  of  the 
United  States."  The  reason  assigned  for  this  declaration,  in  the 
preamble  of  the  act  itself,  is  that  "  these  Treaties  have  been 
repeatedly  violated  on  the  part  of  the  French  government." 


PKOCLAMATION   OF   PKESIDENT   JACKSON.  91 

But  for  this  fact  of  violation  on  the  part  of  France,  Congress 
would  have  had  no  authority  to  enact  this  Statute ;  because  by 
the  Constitution,  these  Treaties  had  been  expressly  made  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land.  Therefore,  the  Statute  does  not  profess 
to  repeal  them,  by  any  enactment,  but  declares  simply,  that  they 
were  no  longer  obligatory  upon  us  "  of  right,"  because  they  had 
been  previously  and  repeatedly  violated  by  France.  So  shewing,  \ 
conclusively,  that  the  violation  of  a  contract  by  one  of  the  sover 
eign  parties  to  it,  is  sufficient  to  absolve  the  other  party  from  all 
its  obligations,  if  this  other  party  chooses  to  adopt  that  course. 

Now,  surely,  no  one  will  contend,  that  what  every  individual 
does,  and  may  of  right  do,  in  regard  to  his  contracts;  what  every 
sovereign  State  has  done,  and  has"  done  rightfully,  in  regard  to 
their  agreements  ;  is  forbidden  to  be  done  by  any  of  thesj  sov 
ereign  States,  in  reference  to  their  covenant  with  their  co-States. 
It  may  be  denied,  as  the  author  of  this  Proclamation  does  deny, 
that  any  of  these  States  is  a  sovereign.  It  may  be  denied  that 
they  have  entered  into  any  covenant  with  each  other :  or  that 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  such  a  covenant.  It  may 
be  denied,  that  this  covenant  has  ever  been  broken  ;  or  that  any 
State  is  responsible  to  any  other,  for  any  breach  of  it.  But  if  all 
these  things  be  granted  (and  in  the  question  propounded,  t\\ej  are 
all  assumed,)  it  follows  necessarily,  that  a  violation  of  the  cove- 
.nant  by  any  of  the  States,  leaves  every  other  State,  who  is  a 
party  to  it,  the  right  to  vacate  the  covenant  as  to  itself  also. 

NOY  can  the  exercise  by  a  State,  of  this  right  of  declaring  N 
a  broken  covenant  no  longer  obligatory  upon  itself  or  its  Citizens, 
be  ascribed,  with  any  propriety,  to  the  high  and  indefeasible 
right  of  Revolution,  which  abides  with  every  people.  This  last 
is  a  mere  individual  right,  it  stands  upon  the  great  maxim,  salus 
populi  est  suprerna  lex.  It  is  the  right  of  self-defence,  which 
man  cannot  alienate,  although  he  may  forbear  to  exert  it.  This 
high  right  rides  over  all  others  whatever  they  may  be.  It  claims 
to  legitimatize  the  dethronement  of  Sovereigns,  the  severance  of 
Empires,  the  dissolution  of  ancient  Societies,  the  breach  of  alle 
giance,  and  even  of  faith  itself.  But  the  right  of  declaring  a 
covenant  broken  by  one  of  the  parties  no  longer  obligatory  upon 
another,  is  the  very  reverse  of  all  this.  It  constitutes  the  founda- 


92  A   KEVIEW    OF   THE 

tion  of  all  society,  to  secure  it  all  governments  of  all  kinds  were 
instituted,  and  upon  its  preservation  depends  sovereignty  itself. 
Upon  it  rests  the  efficacy  even  of  this  holy  right  of  Revolution  ; 
for  unless  man  can  confide  in  his  fellow,  resistance  of  power 
would  be  vain  ;  nor  can  any  one  confide  in  another,  if  their 
mutual  pledges  may  be  broken  by  one  and  remain  obligatory 
upon  the  other,  against  his  will. 

The  assertion  by  a  State,  of  this  right  of  declaring  a  broken 
covenant  no  longer  obligatory  upon  itself  or  its  people,  does  not 
necessarily  produce  any  other  effect,  than  their  absolution  from 
all  the  obligations  formerly  imposed  upon  them  by  the  covenant 
while  it  subsisted  as  such.  It  leaves  them,  in  the  same  plight  as 
to  the  matter  of  the  covenant,  in  which  they  were  before  it  was 
enter|pl  into ;  in  the  same  predicament  in  which  they  would  have 
been  if  it  had  never  existed. 

The  covenant,  as  to  the  party  making  such  a  declaration,  be 
comes  a  mere  nullity,  without  even  any  moral  obligation  upon 
that  party,  who,  in  declaring  its  exemption  from  all  the  former 
obligations  of  the  covenant,  so  abandons  thereafter,  all  shadow  of 
claim  to  any  privilege,  right  or  benefit,  to  which,  it  might  have 
been  entitled  under  it. 

The  assertion,  involves  no  breach  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
State  declaring  the  covenant  broken  by  the  other  parties — so  far 
from  it,  it  affirms  a  breach  of  faith  by  them;  and,  as  in  the  case^ 
of  France,  it  so  justifies  the  act  declaring  its  absolution  from  obli 
gations  already  violated  by  others.  It  disturbs  no  relations  sub 
sisting  between  any  others  independent  of  itself,  but  leaves  to 
them,  the  full  and  free  exercise  of  all  the  rights  and  privileges 
which  the  party  vacating  the  covenant  has  claimed  and  exerted 
for  itself  alone. 

If  they  are  content  to  abide  by  the  broken  covenant  still,  they 
are  free  to  do  so,  whether  they  think  it  has  been  violated  or  not. 

If  they  choose  to  follow  the  example  set,  they  have  the  same 
right  to  do  so,  as  was  exercised  by  those  who  set  the  example. 

To  the  Moralist,  or  the  Jurist,  or  the  Publicist,  these  wsll- 
settled  propositions  need  no  illustration  by  any  example.  To 
others,  I  will  give  only  one,  found  in  our  own  history.  The  thir 
teenth  of  the  old  Articles  of  Confederation,  declared,  that  "  the 


FKOCLAMATIOX    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  93 

Articles  of  this  Confederation  shall  be  inviolably  observed  by 
every  State,  and  the  Union  shall  be  perpetual  ;  nor  shall  any  al 
teration  at  any  time  hereafter  be  made  in  any  of  them,  unless 
such  alteration  be  agreed  to  in  a  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
and  be  afterwards  confirmed  by  the  Legislature  of  every  State." 
Yet  did  eleven  only  of  the  thirteen  States,  in  opposition  to  the 
will  of  the  two  others,  alter  that  solemn  Covenant  by  the  present 
Constitution  of  the  United  States ;'  and  according  to  the  provis 
ions  of  this  latter  Instrument,  nine  States  only  might  have  done 
so,  as  to  themselves,  as  legitimately,  as  did  the  eleven. 

From  whence  was  such  a  power,  which  all  concede  to  have 
boen  rightfully  exercised,  derived  ? 

Certainly  not  from  the  Articles  of  Confederation  themselves,  for 
by  this  very  article,  the  consent  of  "  every  State  "  was  necessary, 
to  make  any  alteration  whatever  in  that  instrument,  nor  from  the 
fact  that  nine  States  then  constituted  a  majority  of  all  the  States. 
If  so,  seven  States  would  have  been  sufficient;  and  moreover,  the 
old  Articles  of  Confederation  might  have  been  put  into  operation 
in  the  year  1778,  when  they  were  agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  the 
States,  three  years  before  they  went  into  actual  operation  by  the 
agreement  of  all  the  States. — The  power  was  derived  in  this  way. 
The  old  Articles  of  Confederation  had  been  violated  in  various 
modes,  by  the  refusal  or  neglect  of  several  of  the  States,  to  comply 
with  the  requisitions  and  recommendations  of  Congress,  made  in 
pursuance  of  that  Covenant.  These  repeated  violations  of  it,  had 
given  every  party  to  it,  the  perfect  right  to  declare  that  it  was  no 
longer  obligatory  upon  them.  But  although  this  was  their  clear 
right,  prudence  and  policy  dictated,  that  they  should  not  exert 
this  right,  until  they  had  provided  a  substitute  for  the  old  Cove 
nant  ;  and  until  this  substitute  should  have  received  the  concur 
rence  of  at  least  nine  cf  the  States.  This  being  done,  their  right 
of  vacating  the  old  instrument,  which  had  been  perfect  before, 
was  then  prudently  exercised.  So  that  this  very  Federal  Consti 
tution,  grows  out  of  the  conceded  right  of  a  State,  to  declare  the 
obligations  of  a  covenant  no  longer  obligatory  upon  itself,  when 
that  covenant  has  been  broken  by  other  parties  to  it. 

It  must  not  be  said,  that  the  Articles  of  Confederation  were  the 
act  of  the  State  legislatures,  and  the  new  Constitution  the  act  of 


94  A    REVIEW    OF   THE 

the  people  of  the  several  States;  and  that  the  latter  abrogated  the 
former,  because  it  proceeded  from  a  superior  power.  The  people 
of  the  several  States,  by  a  very  long  acquiescence,  had  adopted  the 
Articles  of  Confederation  as  their  own  act.  Under  these  Articles 
many  Treaties  had  been  concluded,  many  other  engagements  had 
been  entered  into,  war  had  been  carried  on,  and  peace  made,  in 
their  name,  and  with  their  approbation.  All  these,  were  acts, 
that  could  only  have  been  done  by  acknowledged  agents  and  Eep- 
resentatives  of  the  Sovereignty,  which,  as  has  been  shewn,  then 
abided  in  the  people  of  the  several  States,  in  their  corporate  char 
acter  of  States,  and  was  specially  reserved  to  them  as  such  in  this 
instrument. 

Therefore,  the  change  of  this  covenant,  made  in  a  manner  di 
rectly  in  opposition  to  one  of  its  provisions,  and  against  the  will 
of  some  of  the  parties,  cannot  be  justified  upon  this  ground,  but 
must  be  referred  to  the  other.  If  so  referred,  the  reason  of  that 
provision  of  the  present  Constitution,  which  confined  its  operation 
"  to  the  States  ratifying  the  same,"  even  after  it  might  be  ratified 
by  nine  States,  is  obvious.  The  old  Covenant  being  annulled,  the 
States  were  remitted  to  their  former  condition,  and  could  not  then 
be  bound  by  any  new  covenant  to  which  they  were  not  parties. 

This  example  well  illustrates,  what  a  priori  reasoning  had  es 
tablished,  that  a  covenant  broken  by  one  party,  may  by  any 
other  party  be  rightfully  declared,  no  longer  obligatory  upon  it 
self,  and  so  practically  annulled,  as  to  itself,  by  the  party  making 
this  declaration. — If  this  was  not  so  in  the  case  of  States,  who  can 
foresee  the  consequences  ?  Two  States  agree  to  exchange  differ 
ent  portions  of  their  territories :  may  one  of  them  retain  that 
which  it  has  agreed  to  give,  and  rightfully  demand  of  the  other 
the  delivery  of  what  was  the  equivalent  ?  Commercial  advantages 
are  given  by  one,  as  the  consideration  of  like  advantages  to  be  re 
ceived  by  itself:  Is  one  bound  to  give,  and  not  entitled  to  re 
ceive?  It  seems  monstrous  to  affirm  these  things;  but  yet  such 
are  the  inevitable  consequences  of  the  proposition,  that  a  broken 
covenant  is  still  obligatory,  upon  the  faith  of  the  party  by  whom 
it  has  not  been  violated. — It  will  not  do  to  say,  that  a  party  in 
jured  by  a  breach  of  a  covenant,  may  rightfully  enforce  perform 
ance  from  the  other. 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  95 

This  is  true  only  where  the  innocent  party  is  desirous  to  con 
tinue  the  obligations  of  the  covenant,  but  does  not  apply  where 
he  is  content  to  take  the  other  remedy,  of  declaring  the  broken 
covenant  no  longer  obligatory  upon  him.  Either  mode  of  redress 
•may  be  rightfully  resorted  to  by  the  injured  party,  and  his  policy 
or  discretion  must  decide  which  he  will  adopt :  but  he  cannot 
rightfully  take  both.  If  this  was  not  so,  the  question  of  mere 
right,  Avould  necessarily  be  converted  into  one  of  brute  force,  and 
right  and  power  would  become  the  same.  The  conclusion  from 
these  premises  is,  that  when  a  covenant  entered  into  between  a 
State  and  its  co-States  is  violated  by  any  of  the  parties  to  that 
Covenant,  any  State  may  of  right  declare  the  Covenant  broken, 
and  so  no  longer  obligatory  upon  itself.  In  this  view  of  the  sub 
ject  it  is  of  no  moment,  whether  the  government  of  the  United 
States  be  considered  as  a  party  to  the  covenant  or  not,  because, 
if  the  government  is  a  party,  then  the  principle  applies  in  terms ; 
and  if  not  a  party,  but  only  the  agent  of  the  parties  who  approve 
and  sanction  its  acts,  the  act  of  violating  the  Constitution,  becomes 
by  adoption  the  act  of  all  the  principals  who  approve,  and  sanc 
tion  it,  and  so  the  same  consequence  follows,  in  either  case.  This 
right  of  a  State,  to  declare  a  Covenant  broken  by  some  of  the 
other  parties  no  longer  obligatory  upon  itself,  when  one  of  the  ob 
jects  of  the  broken  covenant  is  "  to  form  a  more  perfect  Union," 
is  the  right  of  Secession,  neither  more  nor  less. 

He  who  denies  this  right,  must  contend,  that  a  majority  of  the 
States,  containing  a  majority  of  the  People,  may  break  this  Con 
stitution  at  their  will,  and  that  the  minority  of  the  States  and 
People,  is  bound  in  good  faith,  and  of  right,  still  to  observe  it  on 
their  part.  For  if  an  unconstitutional  law  be  once  passed,  the  Se 
dition  law  for  example,  it  can  never  be  repealed  without  the  con 
currence  of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  that  is  to  say,  without  the 
concurrence  of  a  majority  of  the  States  in  the  Senate,  and  of  a 
majority  of  the  People  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Nay,  this  is  not  all,  for  no  amendment  of  the  Constitution  can 
be  made  to  redress  the  grievance,  however  great  that  may  be  ; 
for  if  seven  only  of  these  States  refuse  to  ratify  the  amendment, 
the  other  Seventeen  not  constituting  three  fourths  of  all  the 
States,  cannot  make  the  amendment  valid.  There  remains  then 


96  A   REVIEW    OF   THE 

no  relief,  for  an  oppressed  minority  however  great  that  may  be, 
however  cruel  and  unrighteous  and  wanton  maybe  the  oppression, 
but  to  appeal  to  the  God  of  battles,  and  to  assert  their  rights  in 
arms. 

And  was  it  for  this  our  forefathers  fought  and  bled  ?  was  it  for 
this  that  the  wisest  and  best  were  convened,  to  frame  and  adopt  a 
Constitution  stuffed  with  checks  and  limitations  of  power  in  every 
line?  Yv7ho  ever  wanted  any  guaranty  of  the  right  of  Revolu 
tion  ?  That  exists  always ;  it  is  inherent  in  and  inalienable  by 
man.  Compact  neither  gives  nor  can  take  it  away.  Free  gov 
ernment,  is  but  a  device  to  prevent  the  necessity  of  recurring  to 
this  natural  right.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in  sep 
arating  the  Sovereignty  from  the  government,  making  govern-  \ 
ment  rest  upon  a  Covenant  between  the  Sovereign  States  them 
selves,  to  which  covenant  the  government  created  by  it,  is  no 
party,  but  a  mere  agent  of  the  parties,  and  in  thus  constituting 
each  party  the  judge  of  the  observance  of  this  covenant,  with  the 
ri^ht  of  declaring  it  no  longer  obligatory  upon  itself  when  broken 
directly  or  indirectly  by  any  other  party,  was  a  proud  monument^, 
'of  human  wisdom.  Rob  it  of  these  qualities,  and  it  becomes  a 
simple  institution,  by  which  all  power  is  transferred  to  the  major 
ity,  who  may  rule  the  minority  according  to  the  unchecked  will 
%of  the  majority,  without  accountability  to  any  other  than  itself— 
the  thread-bare  garment  of  ancient  days,  long  since  cast  off,  be 
cause  it  was  always  found  worthless  to  shelter  right  against 
power. — Nay,  so  sure  as  effects  folio w  their  causes,  must  a  hard 
military  despotism  speedily  succeed  to  such  a  government,  in  such 
a  Country  as  this. 

I  will  close  this  number  with  this  remark.  Wherever  the  ob-  , 
ject  of  the  covenant  is  to  establish  union  or  association  for  any 
purpose,  between  different  parties,  designing  to  preserve  their 
separate  existence  under  the  Covenant  after  it  is  made,  Secession 
is  one  of  the  remedies  that  may  always  be  resorted  to  by  any  of 
these  parties,  for  a  breach  of  this  covenant  by  any  other :  and 
is  nothing  more  than  a  declaration  of  that  fact.  In  1788,  eleven 
States  seceded  from  the  Union,  established  by  the  old  Articles  of 
Confederation,  and  established  the  present  Constitution  for  all 
States  who  might  choose  to  ratify  the  same.  In  1 798,  the  United 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  97 

States  seceded  from  the  alliance  established  by  their  Treaty  with 
France.  In  either  case,  the  act  proceeded  from  the  same  cause. 
In  neither  case,  did  this  act  produce  any  other  consequence  than 
it  was  designed  to  produce  by  those  who  adopted  it ;  a  mere  dis 
solution  of  the  former  bond  of  union,  or  association  as  to  them 
selves.  JSTor  in  any  case,  can  any  other  consequence  rightfully 
result  from  it,  on  the  part  of  the  State  declaring  its  secession,  al 
though  it  is  possible  that  other  effects  may  flow  from  the  course 
of  the  other  party.  These  effects  shall  constitute  the  subject  of 
my  next  number. 


98  A   KEVIEW    OF  THE 


XII. 

NORFOLK,  January  25,  1833. 

WHILE  seeking  to  establish  the  right  of  a  State,  to  secede  from 
an  Union  formed  by  a  Covenant,  the  terms  of  which  have  been 
broken  by  other  parties,  I  was  not  unaware  of  the  objections  that 
have  been  urged  against  the  existence  of  such  a  right,  not  only 
by  the  author  of  this  Proclamation,  but  by  others  of  the  School 
of  Consolidationists.  But  I  did  not  choose  to  break  the  thread 
of  the  argument,  by  replying  to  these  objections  at  that  time. 
Therefore,  I  assumed  all  the  facts  necessary  to  present  the  naked 
question  of  mere  right.  Having  established  this,  I  will  now  at 
tend  to  these  suggestions.  Many  of  them  have  been  before  no 
ticed  and  answered  ;  and  I  will  not  here  repeat  these  answers. 
But  there  is  one  which  has  not  yet  been  presented,  and  to  the 
examination  of  this,  I  propose  to  dedicate  this  number. 

This  objection  is,  that  no  State  may  rightfully  assume  as  a  fact, 
that  the  Covenant  has  been  broken  by  any  of  its  co-States,  or  act 
upon  such  an  assumption,  without  violating  its  own  faitli :  because 
the  covenant  itself  has  provided  an  arbiter  to  decide  all  such 
questions,  by  whose  decisions  the  faith  of  all  the  parties  must  be 
bound.  This  arbiter  is  said  to  be  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  To  this  objection,  which  is  founded  upon  the 
supposed  existence  of  a  common  arbiter,  authorized  and  capable 
to  decide  all  infractions  of  the  Constitution,  of  which  any  State 
may  have  cause  to  complain,  many  answers  may  be  given,  all 
equally  conclusive  to  shew,  that  no  such  arbiter,  clothed  writh  such 
authority,  either  does,  or  ought  to  be  expected  to  exist. 

The  first  of  these  answers  is,  that  according  to  no  legal  possi 
bility,  could  the  case  supposed  to  exist,  ever  be  presented  to  the 
Supreme  Court  for  its  decision,  even  if  the  sovereign  parties  wrere 
content  to  abide  by  that  decision. — The  Judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  like  all  other  Judges,  are  appointed  to  decide  "  cases,"  and 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  99 

not  to  amuse  themselves  or  to  edify  mankind  (as  the  President 
seeks  to  do  in  this  Proclamation),  with  obiter  dicta,  or  with  pub 
lic  Lectures,  communicating  the  results  of  their  lucubrations  upon 
mere  questions  of  law,  of  politics,  or  of  any  other  art  or  Science. 
These  cases,  too,  according  to  the  very  terms  of  the  Constitution, 
must  be  "  cases  in  law  and  equity,"  and  we  have  the  authority  of 
this  court  itself,  for  saying  that  there  cannot  exist  any  case  in  law 
or  equity,  but  one  presented  to  a  Court  by  the  representations  of 
parties.  The  law  professor  in  every  College,  nay,  the  very  under 
graduates  of  his  Class,  may  deliver  theses  and  dissertations  upon 
questions  of  Sovereignty,  of  Politics,  or  of  law,  and  may  amuse 
and  improve  themselves  by  imagining  suits  brought  by  John  Doe 
versus  Richard  Roe,  to  try  these  questions.  But  it  would  be  a 
high  contempt  of  every  court,  to  attempt  to  steal  from  it  an  opin 
ion,  upon  any  question  presented  in  a  case  brought  by  such  imag 
inary  parties ;  and  not  a  less  contempt  of  public  justice,  if  a  judge 
should  wander  out  of  the  case  before  him,  to  prejudge  some  other, 
or  to  determine  any  mere  abstract  proposition  not  necessary  to 
the  decision  of  the  matter  submitted  by  the  parties  to  his  deter 
mination. — Now,  the  case  supposed  to  exist,  is  the  case  of  a  Cov 
enant  of  Union,  believed  by  one  of  the  parties  to  be  violated  by 
the  government  of  the  United  States,  the  agent  of  all  the  parties. 
In  such  a  case,  the  act  complained  of  being  already  done  by  the 
government,  the  United  States  would  have  no  need  to  become 
actors,  or  to  go  before  any  court  to  assert  the  power  that  has  been 
already  exerted;  and  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  the  authority 
under  which  any  one,  as  an  actor,  may  implead  the  United  States 
in  their  own  courts. 

But  here  it  may  be  said,  perhaps,  as  is  often  said,  that  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  can  only  act  by  Individuals,  and 
upon  Individuals ;  and  as  the  courts  are  always  open  to  such  par 
ties,  all  questions  of  constitutional  right  may  so  readily  be  brought 
before  the  Supreme  Court.  To  this  commonplace  assertion,  I 
oppose  a  flat  denial.  The  evil  complained  of,  may  not  be  the 
consequence  of  any  act  whatever,  but  of  a  wilful  omission  to  act, 
on  the  part  of  the  government.  In  such  a  case,  it  cannot  be  pre 
tended,  that  there  is  any  individual,  to  whom  the  aggrieved  suf 
ferer  may  resort  for  redress,  by  a  suit  in  court — or  the  evil  com- 


100  A   REVIEW   OF   THE 

plained  of,  may  be  an  act,  which,  although  palpably  wrong,  may 
not  require  the  agency  of  any  individual ;  or  although  wantonly 
oppressive  and  cruelly  unjust  upon  all  the  inhabitants  of  a  State, 
may  nevertheless,  like  every  common  nuisance,  be  injurious  to  no 
one  of  them  in  particular,  and  therefore  would  be  an  act  not  to 
be  redressed  in  any  private  suit.  Suppose  for  example,  Congress 
should  pass  a  law  giving  a  preference  to  the  ports  of  one  State 
over  those  of  another,  which  they  are  expressly  forbidden  to  do 
in  the  very  terms  of  the.  Constitution  itself ;  wh at  Individual  could 
sue,  or  what  Individual  might  he  implead,  for  the  perpetration  of 
an  act  so  ruinous  to  the  injured  State  ? 

Even  in  cases  where  the  Courts  might  take  cognizance  of  the 
act  done,  because  done  by  some  Individual  to  some  other  Indi 
vidual,  the  judgement  in  such  a  case  could  bind  none  but  the 
parties  to  the  suit.  It  would  not  repeal  the  unconstitutional  act; 
and  might  not  even  furnish  any  compensation  to  the  Individual 
injured. — Some  agent  of  the  law-makers  in  execution  of  their 
orders,  which  are  in  direct  violation  of  the  Constitution,  does  me 
a  great  injury.  I  sue  him.  The  court  agrees  with  me,  that  the 
act  was  lawless  and  unauthorized. 

The  jnry  awards  an  amount  of  damages  to  me  as  a  just  com 
pensation  for  the  wrong  I  have  sustained.  The  Court  gives  me  a 
judgement  against  him  for  that  sum.  But  the  agent  is  insolvent 
or  runs  away,  and  I  cannot  get  the  intended  compensation.  Will 
any  one  say,  that  the  Court  can  compel  those  by  whose  orders 
the  wicked  deed  was  done,  and  to  test  whose  authority  for  direct 
ing  it  to  be  done,  the  suit  was  brought,  to  pay  me?  Certainly 
not.  I  may  petition  them  to  do  so,  but  if  they  reject  my  peti 
tion,  the  arm  of  the  Judiciary  is  impotent  to  obtain  for  me  the 
relief  to  which  the  Court  itself  has  said  I  was  entitled — even  if 
the  judgement  proves  efficacious  in  my  case,  that  judgement  can 
not  prevent  the  perpetration  of  a  similar  outrage  upon  me  or  my 
neighbour  the  next  day,  under  the  same  usurped  authority. 

The  judgement  does  not  repeal  the  law,  but  declares  simply, 
that  it  constitutes  no  defence  to  the  defendant  in  the  particular 
case  brought  before  the  Court  by  the  parties  then  litigant  therein. 
So  that  until  the  Legislature  will  be  graciously  pleased  to  repeal 
their  law,  every  Individual  of  the  State,  may  be  compelled  to  go 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  101 

through  the  same  tedious  and  expensive  proceedings,  and  to  incur 
the  same  hazards,  in  order  to  obtain  relief  against  an  act  of  the 
government  which  has  been  already  decided  by  the  supposed 
arbiter  to  be  an  unauthorized  usurpation  of  lawless  power.  "Now 
what  a  strange  arbiter  must  he  be,  whose  decision,  if  in  favor  of 
one  of  the  parties,  is  binding  and  obligatory,  but  if  made  against 
that  party,  is  of  no  avail  to  terminate  the  subject  of  difference. 

The  next  answer  to  this  objection  is  this :  where  a  case  in 
law  or  equity  is  properly  brought  before  the  Court,  by  actual 
suitors,  if  in  the  progress  of  this  suit,  it  is  found  to  involve  a 
question  of  the  mere  discreet  exercise  of  political  power  con 
fessedly  granted,  the  Judges  themselves  acknowledge,  that  this 
question  they  are  incompetent  to  decide,  but  as  to  all  such 
matter,  they  are  bound  jurare per  verba  magistri  /  and,  to  say,  as 
Judges,  that  whatever  is,  is  right,  although  as  Individuals,  every 
one  of  them  may  know  it  is  not  so.  While  doubt  exists,  whether 
the  political  power  exercised  is  granted  or  not,  the  Court  may 
give  an  opinion  upon  the  subject.  But  let  it  be  once  conceded, 
that  the  power  has  been  granted  by  the  Constitution  and  the 
Court  is  then  compelled  to  say,  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
question  of  policy,  nor  is  authorized  to  ask,  why  such  power  has 
been  exerted. 

If  Congress  declare  a  war,  although  for  the  most  unrighteous 
purpose  for  which  war  ever  was  declared  by  the  veriest  tyrant 
that  ever  disgraced  a  throne,  the  Judiciary  must  apply  the  sanc 
tions  of  the  law,  to  all  acts  done  contrary  to  the  wicked  will  of 
the  Legislature. 

If  the  President  and  Senate  make  Treaties,  sapping  the  very 
foundations  of  the  Constitution,  the  Judiciary  cannot  declare 
them  void,  or  prevent  their  execution  by  the  executive.  If  Con 
gress  wantonly  levy  duties  and  imposts  for  any  purpose  whatever, 
the  Judicial  power  is  helpless  to  afford  relief. 

They  cannot  injoin  the  marching  of  armies,  the  sailing  of  fleets, 
the  slaughter  of  innocent  men,  the  levy  of  taxes,  or  the  execu 
tion  of  Treaties. 

Yet  it  is  precisely  in  such  cases,  that  the  interposition  of  the 
Sovereign  parties  to  the  Covenant,  will,  probably,  ever  be  neces 
sary. 


102  A   REVIEW   OF   THE 

It  is  idle,  then,  to  say,  that  they  may  not  interpose  even  in 
these  cases,  at  least  for  the  reason  given.  For  the  very  founda 
tion  of  the  objection  to  such  interposition,  is,  that  as  there  is  a 
common  arbiter  appointed  to  decide  the  case,  the  parties  may 
not  rightfully  assume  to  decide  it,  each  for  itself. 

The  next  answer  to  this  objection  is,  that  the  evil  complained 
of  may  be  the  act  of  the  Judiciary  itself,  the  enforcement  of  the 
Sedition  law  for  example,  or  the  application  of  the  common  law 
of  England,  as  a  criminal  code,  to  the  Citizens  of  the  United 
States.  Both  these  cases  have  occurred.  Here,  it  would  be 
monstrous,  to  refer  to  the  Judiciary  to  decide  whether  the  Judi 
ciary  itself  had  done  right ;  and  yet  the  objection  applies  equally 
to  all  cases. 

Another  answer  is,  that  in  this  government,  composed  as  it  is 
of  co-ordinate  departments,  there  exists  no  reason  why  more 
respect  should  be  paid  to  the  acts  of  one  of  these  departments, 
than  to  those  of  any  other ;  and  if  it  is  admitted,  that  neither  of 
these  departments  is  bound  by  the  act  of  its  co-ordinate,  it  would 
be  strange  indeed  to, say,  that  the  sovereign  of  all  was  bound  by 
such  an  act.  Now,  the  objection  itself  asserts,  that  the  Judiciary 
is  not  bound  by  the  acts  of  the  Legislature  or  of  the  Executive ; 
and  no  one,  it  is  believed,  will  contend  that  either  of  the  other 
departments  is  bound  by  the  Judgements  of  the  Judiciary,  how 
ever  obligatory  these  may  be  upon  the  parties. 

I  speak  not  of  courtesy  and  respect,  but  of  obligation  merely. 
Should  the  Judiciary  declare  an  act  of  the  Legislature  void,  such 
a  declaration,  as  I  have  already  said,  cannot  repeal  the  law, 
although  it  may  prevent  its  application  to  the  particular  case  sub 
Judice.  Congress  may  establish  other  Courts  or  other  Judges  to 
execute  the  law ;  or  the  President  and  Senate,  in  execution  of 
such  laws,  may  appoint  additional  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
who  may  differ  from  their  associates  and  over-rule  the  past  de 
cision  in  the  first  new  case,  that  comes  before  the  Court.  Nay 
the  House  of  .Representatives  may  impeach  and  the  Senate  con 
demn  the  Judges,  for  this  very  decision  given  in  violation  of  the 
law  enacted  by  them. 

I  do  not  mean  to  say,  that  any  of  these  things  would  be  right : 
but  when  reasoning  upon  the  case  of  a  violated  Constitution,  I 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  103 

have  a  right  to  suppose,  that  all  legal  means  would  be  employed 
by  the  violators,  to  make  their  viojation  effectual  ;  arid  so  to 
prove,  that  the  Judiciary  cannot  bind  the  Legislature. — We 
have  the  authority  of  the  President  himself  for  saying,  that  he 
feels  himself  as  much  bound  by  his  oath  to  support  the  Constitu 
tion  as  any  one  else  can  do ;  and  therefore,  if  his  agency  is 
required,  whether  by  the  Legislature  or  the  Judiciary,  to  do  any 
act  which  he  believes  unconstitutional,  he  will  not  be  made  to 
sin  against  his  own  conscience  and  to  violate  his  oath.  His  new 
partisans  used  to  censure  him  bitterly  for  this  assertion  :  but  yet 
he  never  made  one  more  moral,  legal,  or  constitutional  than 
it  is.  This  is  a  government  of  concurring  powers,  its  departments 
are  all  co-ordinates,  nor  can  any  one  of  them  move  far  in  any 
direction,  without  encountering  its  fellow^,  by  whose  concurrence 
alone,  it  may  proceed  in  that  way. 

Of  all  these  departments,  the  Judiciary  is  the  weakest,  because, 
it  cannot  act  until  invited  to  do  so,  its  sphere  of  action  is  very 
limited,  nor  can  it  do  any  positive  act,  without  the  permission  of 
the  Legislature,  and  the  co-operation  of  the  Executive. 

But  lastly,  can  the  human  mind  conceive  a  more  audacious 
proposition,  than  that  which  suggests,  that  in  a  controversy 
between  the  parties  to  a  Covenant,  by  which  covenant  an  agent 
is  created,  where  the  matter  in  dispute  between  the  principals, 
regards  the  authority  exerted  by  the  agent,  the  decision  of  this 
controversy  must  be  referred  to  the  agent  himself?  The  very 
exertion  of  the  authority  by  the  agent,  is  a  decision  that  he 
believes  he  may  rightfully  do  so  ;  and  after  this,  it  is  gravely  pro 
posed,  to  leave  the  matter  to  the  final  arbitrament  of  one  who  has 
already  decided  it,  and  who  has  decided  it,  too,  with  the  approba 
tion  of  the  very  persons  who  proposed  such  a  reference.  In  trans 
actions  between  man  and  man,  none  could  hesitate  what  name  to 
bestow  upon  such  a  proposition  :  but  where  the  Sovereignty  of 
the  States  and  the  freedom  of  their  people  is  concerned,  a  gross 
fraud  is  metamorphosed  into  a  political  theory  only.  Nor  will 
the  case  be  changed  materially  if  the  nominated  arbiter  has  never 
yet  decided  the  question,  provided  that  arbiter  be  the  Supreme 
Court ;  this  arbiter  is  not  even  given  by  lot.  It  is  appointed  by 
the  supposed  wrong  doer,  paid  by  him,  accountable  to  him,  sub- 


104  A   KEVIEW   OF   THE 

ject  at  any  moment  to  be  punished  and  cashiered  by  him,  and 
this  too,  for  giving  the  very.decision  its  conscience  might  prompt. 
Thus,  matters  which  would  constitute  valid  and  legal  objections, 
to  witnesses,  to  Jurors,  and  to  the  Judges  themselves,  in  the  most 
trifling  controversy  between  man  and  man,  are  to  be  overlooked 
and  disregarded,  in  the  support  of  a  new  theory,  which  seeks  to 
constitute  the  Federal  government  the  sole  Judge  of  its  own 
power. 

I  have  great  respect  for  the  Judiciary  of  every  country,  but  no 
lawyer  or  historian  can  tell,  in  what  age  or  in  what  country, 
the  Judiciary  have  ever  been  able,  even  where  it  was  willing,  to 
protect  the  rights  of  the  people  against  the  usurpations  of  Govern 
ment.  England  has  long  been  blessed  with  a  Judiciary,  composed 
of  men,  whose  intelligence,  whose  integrity,  and  whose  firmness, 
would  not  suffer  in  comparison  with  that  of  any  others  who  have 
ever  been  or  are  now  on  earth.  But  when  or  who  of  these 
Judges  have  ever  been  able  to  save  the  privileges  of  the  people 
from  the  prerogatives  of  the  crown,  unless  the  Judiciary  was 
sustained  by  another  branch  of  the  government?  And  how 
many  examples  are  there,  of  acts  of  Parliament  made  for  the 
special  purpose  of  saving  the  people  from  the  Judiciary  ?  For 
the  Judiciary  of  the  United  States,  I  entertain  at  least  as  much 
respect  as  I  do  for  any  other  Judiciary.  I  will  not  say  more ; 
and  I  cannot  say  less,  With  the  individual  Judges,  I  have 
nothing  to  do.  They  shall  all  be,  if  any  one  thinks  so,  what 
some  of  them  certainly  are,  "  like  Mansfield  wise,  and  as  old 
Foster  just."  But  all  must  know  that  the  robes  of  office  do  not 
cover  angels,  but  mere  men,  as  prone  to  err,  as  any  other  men  of 
equal  intelligence,  of  equal  purity,  and  of  equal  constancy.  We 
all  know,  too,  that  some  of  the  supreme  Judges  of  the  United 
States,  have  not  thought  it  unbecoming  their  high  places,  to 
accept  Foreign  Missions,  to  present  themselves  as  candidates  for 
other  offices,  and  to  enter  into  newspaper  disquisitions  upon  party 
topics.  I  do  not  mean  to  blame  them  for  such  things,  but  merely 
to  shew  from  such  facts,  that  the  rights  of  sovereign  States,  when 
assailed  by  the  government  of  the  United  States,  could  not  be 
safely  confided  to  a  forum  so  constituted,  even  if  it  was  possible 
that  it  could  take  cognizance  of  the  subject.  Nor  can  he  be  con- 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  105 

sidered  as  a  discreet  friend  to  the  Judiciary,  I  should  think,  who 
desired  to  embark  it  in  this  fearful  strife. 

I  have  answered  this  first  objection,  founded  upon  the  sug 
gestion,  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is  the  com 
mon  arbiter  appointed  to  decide  all  questions  that  may  arise 
between  a  State  and  its  co-States,  touching  the  violation  of  their 
mutual  covenant.  My  answer  to  the  remaining  objections  I  must 
postpone  to  another  number. 


106  A   REVIEW    OF   THE 


XIII. 

NORFOLK,  January  30,  1833. 

A  VEKY  careful  examination  of  the  late  Proclamation  presents 
to  my  view  no  other  objection,  there  urged,  to  this  right  of  seces 
sion,  than  such  as  I  have  already  noticed. 

The  summary  of  its  argument,  and  very  nearly  in  its  own 
words  in  this. — Each  State  has  expressly  parted  with  so  many 
powers,  as  to  constitute  it  jointly  with  the  other  States,  a  single 
nation.  In  becoming  parts  of  a  nation,  the  States  surrendered 
many  of  their  essential  rights  of  sovereignty,  and  so  were  no 
longer  sovereign ;  the  allegiance  of  their  citizens  being  trans 
ferred  to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  But  this  govern 
ment  thereupon  became  their  sovereign,  because  it  can  punish 
Treason,  which  is  an  offence  against  sovereignty,  and  sovereignty 
must  reside  with  the  power  to  punish  it.  Moreover,  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  forms  a  government.  Every  govern 
ment  has  a  sanction  expressed  or  implied,  therefore,  a  govern 
ment  has  a  right  by  the  law  of  self-defence,  to  pass  acts  for 
punishing  offences  against  its  authority,  unless  that  right  is  modi 
fied,  restrained,  or  resumed  by  the  constitutional  act.  In  our 
system,  although  the  right  is  modified  in  the  case  of  Treason, 
yet  authority  is  expressly  given,  to  pass  all  laws  necessary  to 
carry  the  powers  of  government  into  effect. — Hence,  no  State  of 
this  Union  may  secede,  because  such  secession  would  destroy  the 
Unity  of  the  Nation,  any  attempt  to  do  which  act,  would  be  an 
offence  against  the  sovereignty  of  the  government,  and  might 
be  properly  punished  at  its  own  discretion. 

In  reply  to  this  argument,  I  have  already  endeavoured  to  shew, 
that  these  States  do  not,  and  never  did,  constitute  a  single  nation : 
but  are,  as  they  ever  have  been  since  they  assumed  to  be  States, 
free  and  sovereign  States,  not  consolidated  into  one  nation,  but 
united  only  by  a  written  covenant  of  Union,  which  we  call  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  That  the  government  formed 
by  this  Constitution,  so  far  from  being  a  sovereign,  is  a  mere 
creature  of  the  will  of  these  States,  subject  to  amendment,  and 
rightful  destruction  at  their  pleasure,  endowed  with  but  limited 


PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON  107 

powers,  that  may  be  properly  exerted  for  tlie  attainment  of  enu 
merated  objects  only.  And  so  far  from  possessing  this  natural 
right  of  self-defence,  it  is  not  even  a  party  to  the  Covenant  under 
which  it  exists,  nor  may  rightfully  exercise  any  one  of  its  granted 
powers  against  any  one  of  these  States,  its  creators,  although 
it  may  properly  do  so  against  their  Citizens,  when  they  are 
acting  without  the  authority  of  their  State,  the  only  sovereign  to 
whom  they  owe  allegiance.  That  the  union  of  the  States  thus 
resting  upon  a  covenant  entered  into  by  every  State  with  its 
co-States,  when  the  terms  of  this  Covenant  are  supposed  to  be 
broken  by  any  of  them,  as  there  is  no  common  arbiter  to  decide 
between  the  parties,  it  is  of  necessity,  that  each  State  must  judge 
for  itself,  and  act  as  its  own  judgement  may  dictate. 

If  in  the  honest  exercise  of  this  judgement  any  sovereign  State 
declares  the  covenant,  broken  by  its  co-States,  and  chooses  to  dis 
solve  the  Union  thereby  established,  for  this  cause,  she  has  the 
perfect  right  to  do  so ;  and  this  makes  secession  from  the  Union, 
as  to  that  party  only. 

I  will  not  repeat  the  arguments  by  which  these  several  posi 
tions  have  been  maintained,  but  will  follow  my  conclusion  to  all 
its  consequences. 

When  a  sovereign  State  decides,  that  the  Covenant  of  Union 
which  formerly  bound  her  to  her  co-States,  has  been  broken  by 
them,  and  is  therefore  annulled  as  to  herself,  it  is  clear,  that  these 
her  co-States,  are  not  bound  by  her  decision.  They  are  then 
called  upon  to  decide  several  questions,  of  a  very  different  charac 
ter,  each  for  itself  also. 

The  first  of  these  involves  their  faith.  Has  that  been  broken 
as  is  averred  ?  Should  this  be  so,  according  to  the  honest  convic 
tion  of  iiny  of  the  co-States,  such  State,  as  a  moral  and  account 
able  being,  is  bound  to  acquiesce  in  the  decision  made  by  the  first 
party,  which  is  so  acknowledged  to  be  right.  But  if  acting  under 
its  accountability,  it  honestly  believes,  that  its  faith  has  not  been 
violated  as  is  averred,  a  second  question  is  presented.  Is  it  better, 
while  repelling  the  charge  of  violated  faith,  to  acquiesce  in  the 
determination  of  the  first  party  to  annul  the  covenant  as  to  itself? 
This  question  also,  each  of  the  co-States  must  decide  for  them 
selves  respectively. 

The  subject  now  becomes  a  matter  of  naked  policy,  which  like 


108  A   EEVIEW   OF   THE 

every  other  question  of  mere  expediency,  must  depend  upon  all 
the  circumstances  existing  in  the  case.  This  question  appertains 
to  the  Statesman,  the  mere  theorist  can  neither  comprehend,  or 
hope  to  decide  it,  correctly ;  and,  therefore,  it  would  be  very  for 
eign  to  my  present  purpose. 

But  if  after  examining  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  in  all 
their  different  relations  and  probable  effects,  the  co-States,  whose 
covenant  has  been  annulled,  wrongfully  as  they  may  believe,  de 
termine  nevertheless  to  acquiesce  in  the  act  vacating  it  as  to  the 
other  party,  the  difference  is  at  an  end, — each  party  concurs,  al 
though  for  different  reasons,  in  the  same  purpose,  and  no  collision 
will  take  place  between  them. 

Such  was  the  course  pursued  by  the  States  in  1788,  when  the 
old  Articles  of  Confederation  were  annulled  by  the  act  of  eleven 
of  the  States,  who  then  seceded  from  the  Union  established  there 
by.  And  such  has  been  the  course  pursued  in  very  many  other 
cases  of  Union  and  alliance  that  it  would  be  tedious  here  to  enu 
merate,  but  to  which  the  recollection  of  every  reader  of  history 
will  at  once  recur.  But  if  after  a  due  examination  of  the  subject 
in  all  its  bearings  the  party  of  which  I  am  now  speaking,  thinks 
itself  unjustly  aggrieved  by  the  act  of  its  co-State  in  annulling 
their  mutual  covenant,  and  seceding  from  the  Union  thereby  es 
tablished,  and  that  it  is  expedient  to  push  this  difference  to  war, 
unquestionably  it  may  wage  war ;  and  may  so  impose  upon  the 
other  party  the  necessity  of  submitting  to  its  dictation,  or  of  de 
fending  itself  by  the  same  means. 

Such  a  war,  as  to  the  party  with  whom  alone  it  can  commence, 
will  differ  from  every  other  that  has  before  occurred  from  the  be 
ginning  to  that  day ;  because,  even  by  the  most  complete  success 
its  avowed  object  can  never  be  attained. 

Independence,  conquest,  reparation  of  wrongs,  security,  punish 
ment  of  indignity  offered,  may  all  be  achieved  by  successful  war ; 
but  victory  can  never  make  union,  or  repair  the  breach  of  its 
broken  covenant.  It  behooves  the  Statesman,  then,  to  deliberate 
well,  before  he  makes  a  war  for  any  unattainable  object.  Should 
thu  seceding  party  prove  successful  in  the  contest,  it  will  so 
maintain  its  independence,  and  may  then  agree  to  enter  into  an 
other  Covenant  of  Union,  "  laying  its  foundations  on  such  princi 
ples,  and  organizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall 


PROCLAMATION    OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  109 

seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness,"  but  this 
will  be  a  new  covenant. — Should  the  other  party  prove  successful, 
it  may  conquer  the  territory,  exterminate  its  inhabitants,  change 
all  the  institutions  of  the  seceding  States,  nay,  do  whatever  else  it 
lists,  and  which  is  possible ;  for  who  shall  give  law  to  conquest  ? 

But  it  cannot  revive  the  old  Covenant  of  Union.  That  is  gone 
forever,  and  can  no  more  be  recalled  than  yesterday. 

If  the  Victor,  in  his  clemency,  chooses  to  spare  the  lives  of  his 
conquered  enemies,  to  permit  them  to  enjoy  their  former  religion, 
and  laws,  and  civil  institutions,  nay,  to  occupy  the  conquered 
country  still,  he  may  win  the  thanks  of  the  vanquished,  and  per 
haps  beget  in  them  a  sense  of  gratitude  towards  the  generous 
chief  who  has  been  thus  forbearing  and  kind  to  a  fallen  foe.  But 
let  none  mistake  the  character  of  the  sentiment  so  produced.  It 
is  loyalty  not  patriotism  ;  and  let  those  beware  of  the  loyalty  of 
the  grateful  Mameluke,  who  may  wTish  thereafter  to  harm  his  kind 
conqueror. 

A  subdued  people  have  ever  been  the  great  agents  in  subduing 
others. 

Extinguish  any  one,  even  the  smallest  of  these  now  sovereign 
States,  and  rely  upon  it,  many  others  will  soon  share  their  fate. 
A  majority  may  subdue  a  minority,  probably.  They  can  only  do 
so  however,  by  means  of  force,  which  must  be  guided  by  a  man  ; 
and  if  their  chief  is  prudent,  the  subdued  minority  will  as  certain 
ly  unite  to  make  him  a  military  despot,  as  the  people  of  Rome 
proclaimed  the  power  of  a  Dictator  to  escape  from  the  thraldom 
of  an  overbearing  and  selfish  Senate. 

Will  the  Victors  seek  to  avert  this  consequence,  by  proposing 
to  admit  the  conquered  State  into  their  Union  again  ?  She  must 
come  if  they  say  so,  but  the  Union  thereupon  becomes,  to  all  in 
tents  and  purposes,  a  new  covenant.  The  rights  of  the  conquered 
State  are  then  derived  to  her,  under  the  gracious  gift  of  her  con 
querors,  arid  not  from  her  own  free  and  sovereign  will. 

The  old  Covenant  of  Union  made  and  sustained  by  equal  and 
independent  States,  gives  place  to  one  of  a  very  different  charac 
ter,  in  which  there  can  be  no  mutual  confidence,  because  it  rests 
no  longer  upon  mutual  consent.  Many  generations  must  pass 
away,  before  any  subdued  people  ought  to  be  trusted  as  a  compo 
nent  part  of  the  Union  by  which  they  have  been  subdued.  A 


110  A   EEYIEW   OF   THE 

King  may  make  conquests,  and  by  many  means  may  attach  his 
conquered  subjects  to  his  person,  and  win  their  loyalty  to  his 
Crown ;  for  his  people  are  all  subjects,  and  in  his  eyes,  are  all  en 
titled  to  his  protection  alike.  But  you  had  as  well  insert  some 
deadly  poison  into  the  veins  of  an  animal,  and  expect  it  to  live  in 
health,  as  in  a  Representative  Democracy,  to  admit  immediately, 
the  Representatives  of  a  conquered  people  to  become  parts  of  its 
Union,  and  expect  such  a  government  to  last  long. 

Then,  the  war  waged  to  revive  a  broken  covenant  of  Union, 
however  successful  may  be  its  means,  can  never  attain  its  avowed 
end.  It  may  bring  conquest,  may  make  loyal  subjects,  or  hollow- 
hearted  pretended  allies ;  but  it  cannot  make  real  union.  The 
union  of  free  States  can  neither  be  made  or  preserved  by  force. 

It  is  a  solecism  so  to  speak.  Such  a  fanciful  Union  is  consoli 
dation  in  its  most  abhorrent  form,  wherein  the  majority,  while  it 
continues  such,  will  wield  not  only  their  own  powers,  but  those 
assigned  to  their  subdued  allies  also. 

I  thank  God,  that  in  His  infinite  wisdom  and  mercy  He  has 
been  pleased  thus  to  ordain.  The  truths  I  have  announced,  ought 
and  will  teach  moderation  and  forbearance  to  all  who  value  the 
Union  of  these  States.  Each  will  look  to  the  fearful  consequences 
to  itself,  that  may  attend  its  own  acts,  and  will  abstain  from 
pushing  even  admitted  powers  to  oppression.  The  right  of  seces 
sion  is  the  right  of  all;  it  may  be  claimed  by  one  to-day  and  by 
another  to-morrow,  as  each  may  find  itself  aggrieved.  Its  appre 
hended  evils  may  be  easily  guarded  against,  by  abstaining  from 
exercising  doubtful  powers,  or  pressing  legitimate  powers  until 
they  become  doubtful.  The  security  of  the  Union  is  to  be  found 
in  the  common  affections  and  common  interests  of  the  States,  and 
not  in  the  bayonets  of  its  soldiery. 

By  such  feelings  alone  was  the  Union  first  formed,  by  such 
sentiments  alone  has  it  been  since  maintained,  and  by  such  senti 
ments  alone  can  it  be  preserved. 

Once  deny  this  right  of  secession  when  it  is  claimed,  and  pre 
vent  or  punish  its  exercise  by  military  force,  and  surely  as  night 
succeeds  the  day,  our  destiny  as  a  free  people  is  fulfilled. 

But  what  may  be  done  if  a  State  unmindful  of  her  faith  will 
secede  from  an  union  to  support  which  her  faith  has  been  plight 
ed  ?  If  she  leaves  any  common  obligation  unsatisfied,  which  may 


PROCLAMATION   OF  PRESIDENT   JACKSON.  Ill 

be  compensated  by  her,  demand  it,  and  if  you  can,  enforce  this  de 
mand.  The  War5  if  war  shall  be  necessary  to  accomplish  this 
end,  is  then  rightful  and  just.  It  will  have  an  object  that  may 
be  attained,  and  when  attained,  it  brings  peace,  the  only  legiti 
mate  end  of  every  war. 

But  if  she  leaves  no  debt  unpaid  or  any  duty  unfulfilled,  or 
when  she  has  made  the  compensation  required,  let  her  go  and  let 
her  go  in  peace.  If  she  is  but  a  single  State,  she  will  soon  learn 
in  her  wants,  the  value  of  the  Union  she  has  abandoned,  and  will 
speedily  return,  if  the  evils  of  its  government  are  not  intolerable. 
If  there  be  many  States,  their  right  of  secession  will  never  be 
denied. 

Should  I  pursue  the  subject,  which  this  sentence  suggests,  I 
should  tread  upon  the  ground  which  belongs  to  the  Statesman 
exclusively.  It  is  the  business  of  the  theorist,  to  scan  the  nature 
of  this  government,  and  to  deduce  from  thence  its  principles  and 
its  character. 

It  is  the  business  of  the  patriot  Statesman  to  apply  these  prin 
ciples,  and  in  their  application,  to  adapt  them  to  the  circum 
stances  of  each  particular  case,  so  as  to  preserve  this  character. 
While  he  does  so,  he  will  but  confirm  the  government  in  the  con 
duct  of  whose  affairs  he  is  called  to  assist.  But  if  he  seeks  to 
pervert  these  principles,  or  to  change  this  character,  he  is  a  Revo 
lutionist,  whether  his  schemes  are  designed  to  be  perfected  by 
the  arts  of  persuasion,  the  strong  hand  of  force,  or  by  any  other 
means. 

One  remark  more  and  I  have  done.  The  author  of  this  Proc 
lamation,  while  speaking  of  this  right  of  secession,  says  :  "  To  call 
it  a  constitutional  right,  is  confounding  the  meaning  of  terms : 
and  can  only  be  done  through  gross  error,  or  to  deceive  those  who 
are  willing  to  assert  a  right,  but  would  pause  before  they  made  a 
Revolution,  or  incur  the  penalties  consequent  on  a  failure." 

I  will  say  nothing  of  the  spirit  which  dictated  these  declara 
tions;  whether  the  assertion  of  this  right  be  a  gross  error,  not  this 
author  but  an  enlightened  world  will  judge ;  and  as  to  the  mo 
tives  which  prompt  it,  they,  like  those  which  produced  the  dec 
larations  I  have  quoted,  can  be  understood  by  Him  alone  who  can 
read  the  human  heart.  To  His  inspection  mine  are  willingly 
submitted  :  but  I  utterly  disclaim  the  authority  of  this  self-suffi- 


112  PROCLAMATION   OF   PRESIDENT   JACKSON. 

cient  personage,  the  President,  to  denounce  me  and  all  others, 
from  his  throne,  as  stupid  fools  or  cowardly  knaves,  because  we 
do  not  concur  in  his  new  political  dogmas,  but  dare  to  think  for 
ourselves.  And  what  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  has  the 
question  of  right  to  do  with  either  his  motives  or  mine?  At  last 
it  will  be  found  to  turn  upon  what  this  author  means  by  constitu 
tional  right,  probably. 

According  to  his  idea,  it  would  seem,  that  there  are  no  consti 
tutional  rights  but  such  as  are  granted  by  the  Constitution  ;  and, 
therefore,  that  the  right  of  bearing  arms,  of  peaceably  assembling 
to  consult  about  public  affairs,  of  petitioning  for  a  redress  of 
grievances,  are  none  of  them  constitutional  rights,  because  no  one 
of  these  is  therein  granted. 

But  according  to  my  notion,  every  right,  and  every  power  too, 
not  disparaged  by  any  of  the  grants  and  prohibitions  contained  in 
the  Constitution,  are  especially  reserved  therein,  and  so*  become 
constitutional  rights  and  powers.  The  right  of.  secession  thus  be 
comes  a  constitutional  right. 

I  once  thought,  that  none  of  the  present  generation  would  see 
the  day,  when  these  States  would  become  "a  single  nation,"  or 
the  government  established  by  them  u  a  Sovereign,"  claiming  like 
every  other  sovereign,  the  rights  of  "  self-defence,"  "  a  transfer  of 
the  allegiance  of  the  citizens,"  and  brandishing  the  weapons  of 
its  asserted  powers  in  their  faces. 

Recent  events,  I  acknowledge,  have  much  diminished  my  con 
fidence  in  this  belief.  The  same  events  have  strengthened  another 
opinion  I  have  long  entertained,  that  there  exists  no  middle 
ground,  between  the  Federal  government  established  by  the  Con 
stitution  and  that  which  will  speedily  succeed  it,  a  simple,  abso 
lute,  unmixed  and  hard  military  despotism. 

So  long  as  this  Constitution  can  be  preserved,  this  may  be 
averted. 

Then  let  the  sovereign  States  who  made  it,  guard  well  this  ark 
of  their  political  safety,  which  they  know  contains  the  Holy  Cov 
enant  wherein  is  written  the  commandments  of  their  law.  Let 
each  constantly  cry  aloud  to  every  other  and  to  all  their  servants, 
in  the  words  of  the  inspired  one,  "  nor  do  you  prefer  any  other 
constitution  of  government  before  the  laws  now  given  to  you." 

A  VIRGINIAN. 


KSTURN 


LIBRARIES 


So 


""LIBRARIES 


